Sri. D. Chiranjeevulu

 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­XXVI ADDITIONAL

CHIEF JUDGE :: CITY CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: SRI D. CHIRANJEEVULU,

XXVI Additional Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Wednes day, the 31 st day of July, 2019.

M.V.O.P.No.2346 of 2016

Between:­

1. K. Balakrishna Reddy, S/o. Late K. Ramachandra Reddy, Age: 44 years, Occ: Constable, R/o.2­108/2/32, Road No.1, Sri Sai Enclave, Boduppal, Hyderabad.

2.K. Bheem Reddy, S/o. Late K. Ramachandra Reddy, Age: 40 years, Occ: Home Guard, R/o. 12­1­1­54/7, Waddera Bhasthi, Bandlaguda, Nagole, R.R. District. (Amended as per Orders in I.A.No.236 of 2019 dated 20.03.2019) … Petitioners AND

1. M. Kiran Kumar Goud, S/o. M. Narasimha Goud, Age: Major, Occ: Business, R/o.3­91/1, Korremula, Ghatkesar, R.R. District.

2.M/s. Bajaj Allianz Gen.Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, 4th Floor, North East Plaza, Erramanzil X road, Hyderabad. Policy No.OG­16­1803­1801­00062779 valid from 4­1­16 to 31­1­2017.

....Respondents

This petition coming on 24.07.2019 before me in the presence of Sri. P.V. Ramana Murthy, Advocate for Petitioners and of Sri C. Mahender Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 remained exparte and upon hearing both the counsels and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:­

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 and

Rules 475(1)(B) of A.P.M.V. Rules 1989 R/w Section 163­A & 140© of A.P.M.V. Act, 1989 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/­ (Rupees

Fifteen Lakhs only).

2 MVOP.No.2346 of 2016

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

On 04.04.2016 at about 23.00 hours while the deceased was crossing the road at Boduppal Kaman by walk, and at that time one Maruthi Wagaon R Car bearing

No.TS 08 ER 4546 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without observing traffic rules and dashed to the petitioner’s father due to which he fell down on the road and sustained grevious injuries besides fractures. Immediately he was shifted to Adity Hospital, by 108 ambulance for first aid and after first aid he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderguda, Hyderabad. While undergoing treatment he was died on 07.04.2016.

Police Medipally registered a case in Cr.Mno.211/2016 against the driver of the said car bearing No.TS08ER 4546, who caused the accident.

The deceased was dynamic in his work and he was aged about 58 years and he was contributing his entire income for maintaining his family. The petitioner was only son of deceased and dependent of the deceased. Due to untimely death of the deceased petitioner is put to great hardship and untold mental agony besides irreparable loss and deceased is the only bread winner for the entire family. The

Respondent No.1 is the owner of the crime vehicle and Respondent No.2 is the insurer. Hence, Respondents No.1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the claimant jointly and severally.

 3.The Respondent No.1 remained exparte.

4.The 2nd Respondent No.2 i.e M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd filed counter generally denying the petition averments putting the petitioners to strict proof of the contents of the petition and the averments of the counter in brief are that:

This respondent admit that the interest of Shri M. Kiran Kumar Goudin vehicle car bearing No.TS 08 ER 4546 was covered at the material time under the policy of insurance issued by this respondent subject to the terms, conditions, 3 MVOP.No.2346 of 2016 exceptions and limitations thereof and the confirmation of the compliance of

Sect.64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. The insurance policy issued by this respondent in favour of the Respondent No.1 bears No.OG­16­1803­1801­ 00062779 for the period from 04.01.2016 to 03.01.2017 is in the possession of the insured i.e Respondent No.1. The insured may kindly be directed to produce the original insurance policy before the Hon’ble Tribunal, failing which, this answering respondent shall produce the copy of the policy which may kindly be exhibited and read in evidence. That the owner cum driver of Maruthi Wagnor bearing

No.TS­08ER­4546 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and further was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license and further has not satisfied the requirements of the Rule No.3 of the

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The respondent No.1 willfully and knowingly has drove the vehicles without possession valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident and therefore, has contravened the proviso of the M.V. Act and the Rules framed there under and has committed the breach of the contract and violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, in view of the above stated breach contract made by the respondent No.1, he is alone liable to pay the compensation to the claim petitioner and this respondent company has no liability to pay any compensation to the claim petitioner and this respondent company has no liability to pay any compensation to the claim petitioner and it is liable to be dismissed against this respondent company. That this respondent seeks protection under the Section 147 and 149 of M.V. Act. That as per Section 134(c) of M.V.

Act, 1988, it is mandatory duty of the insured/Respondent No.1 herein to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of deceased and the name of the driver and particulars of the driving license but the 4 MVOP.No.2346 of 2016 insured/first respondent herein has not complied with statutory demand. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and the case is liable to be dismissed against this respondent for non­compliance of statutory demand. That

As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is mandatory duty of the concerned police station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of the information but the Medipally police station failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand.

That the petitioner is put to strict proof that the registered owner used the Maruthi

Wagnor bearing No.TS­08ER­4546 without any breach of permit, fitness and traffic rules as per M.V. Rules. The petitioner is put to strict proof that there was no violation of any section of M.V. Act, 1988 and its subsequent amendments. The petitioner claimed interest 18& which is highly excessive and same is contrary to

Section 3 of Interest Act, 1978 and the observations of the various judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court. The petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on non­

pecuniary damages as per the observations of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

Court. That this respondent does not admit and denies the allegation that Maruthi

Wagnor bearing No.TS­08ER­4546 was involved in the above alleged accident and it was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the petitoner is put to strict proof of the same with documentary evidence. That this respondent does not admit and denies that the deceased was aged about 58 years and he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/­ per month by working as a Agriculture/Dairy Farm and for want of knowledge denies the same. Hence, the petitioners are put to strict proof with documentary evidence regarding deceased age, income and occupation.

Further the respondent for want of knowledge denies the very relationship of the petitioners with the deceased since no document was served on this respondent 5 MVOP.No.2346 of 2016 with regard to legal entity of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. That this respondent does not admit and denies the allegations regarding the manner in which the alleged accident said to have occurred. The allegations that “on 04.04.2016 at about 23.00 hours the deceased was crossing the road at Boduppal Kaman by walk and at that time one Maruthi

Wagon Car bearing No.TS­08ER­4546 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without observing traffic rules and dashed to the petitioner father due to which he fell down of the road and sustained grievous injuries besides fractures, immediately he was shifted to Aditya Hospital by 108 ambulance after first aid he shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad while undergoing treatment he was died on 07.04.2016” and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same with documentary evidence. That this respondent does not admit and denies that Medipally Police

Station registered a case in Cr.No.211/2016 under Sections 337 and 304­A of IPC against the driver of Maruthi Wagnor bearing No.TS­08ER­4546. Hence, the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same with documentary evidence. That this respondent specifically denied that “The claimant is legal heir and dependent of the deceased and he was resident of Boduppal, R.R. District the deceased was

Agriculturist­cum­running dairy farm and was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/­ per month on average, at the time his death and spend all his income for the family. The deceased was dynamic in his work and had been alive the deceased would future, and he was aged about 58 years only, the deceased was contributing his entire income for maintaining his family, the petitioner is only son of deceased and dependent of the deceased. Due to untimely death of the deceased, petitioner is put to great hardship and untold mental agony besides irreparable loss, and the deceased is the only bread winner for the entire family” and the petitioners are put 6 MVOP.No.2346 of 2016 to strict proof of the same with documentary evidence. This respondent denies that the petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.15,00,000/­ on all the heads and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same with documentary evidence.

That without prejudice, it is submitted that the claim petitioner is major and working as police constable, who is not dependent on the earning of the deceased and there is no dependency on the deceased as they can live independently, and at present settled law the major sons are not entitled to any compensation under the heads of dependency and more over the deceased was more than 60 years old as on the date of alleged accident and he can not earn at his old age and he was not the earning member in his family, as such this respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. That without prejudice to the rights and contention and without admitting any liability the answering opponent further submits that the claimants may be directed to furnish the details of the PAN No,

KYC details and NEFT from which may be required as per the provisions of the IT

Act. That the accident occurred only due to the negligence of deceased, who without observing/following the traffic rules and without taking minimum precautionary measures was crossing the road in the night at 23.00 hours and caused the accident. Taking alternate pleading and without admitting any liability it is submitted that the negligence on the part of deceased may be taken into a greater extent.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:

1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Wagonr bearing No.TS 08 ER 4546?

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

3.To what relief?

7 MVOP.No.2346 of 2016

6.To prove their claim, the 1st petitioner­K. Balakrishna Reddy examined himself as PW.1 and got exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.9 and also examined the treating Doctor i.e

Dr. V. Prashanth, Orthopedic Surgeon, Mother Teresa Orthopedic Hospital at

Devarakonda on commission as PW.2. On Respondents side, Respondent No.2­

Vishwanadhula Nagaraju, Asst.Manager­Claims Legal, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance

Co. Ltd., Hyderabad is examined as RW.1 and Ex.B.1 True copy of policy along with terms and conditions is marked.

7.Heard arguments on both sides. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 addressed his arguments and submitted written arguments. He submits that the petitioners herein have not filed any document in support of their relation with the deceased. The petitioners have miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof with regard to the relation with the deceased. He further submits that PW.1 deposed in cross­examination that “It is true that he would not filed any document to show that deceased was aged 58 years at the time of accident”. From the above evidence it is crystal clear that the deceased was aged more than 65 years. That as per the police records and medical records the deceased is aged more than 65 years. Thus the court may consider more than 65 years as deceased age. That the petitioners have miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof with regard to age of the deceased. He further submits that the contention of the petitioners in the claim petition and chief­ examination is that the deceased was doing agriculture/Dairy farm and earning

Rs.15,000/­ per month. PW.1 deposed in cross­examination that “It is true that he has not filed any document to show that the deceased was doing agriculture/running dairy farm and earning Rs.15,000/­ per month. Witness adds that his father is having 2 ½

Acres agricultural land.” From the above evidence it is evident that the petitioners have failed to produce any document in support of occupation and income. He further submits that the petitioners have produced Ex.A.9 in support of income of the 8 MVOP.No.2346 of 2016 deceased. PW.1 deposed in cross­examination that “It is true that income certificate issued by Thasildar for the purpose of sanction of scholarship/fee reimbursement only, not for the court purpose.” From the above evidence it is crystal clear that Ex.A.9 may not be consider since the same issued for another purpose. He further submits that the petitioners have failed to file any document in support that his father has 2 ½ acres of agricultural land and the same was sold or not utilized due to his death. Thus, the court may not consider any occupation and income of the deceased. That the petitioners have miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof with regard to occupation and income of the deceased. He further submits that the burden of proof to show that the accident occurred due to the negligence of car bearing No.TS­08ER­ 4546 lies on the petitioners. That as per the complete police record, the deceased was crossing the road in the midnight. PW.1 deposed in cross­examination that “It is true that at the time of accident his father was crossing the road at Boduppal Kaman.” From the above evidence, it is evident that the deceased was crossing the road at the time of accident. Hence, the court may take contributory negligence on the part to the deceased. He further submits that the accident occurred due to the negligence of deceased, who without observing/following the traffic rules and without taking minimum precautionary measures was crossing the road in the night at 23.00 hours and caused the accident. Taking alternate pleading and without admitting any liability it is submitted that the negligence on the part of the deceased may be taken into a greater extent. The petitioners have miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof with regard to rash and negligent and accident. He further submits that the deceased is father of the petitioners and as per the claim petition the petitioners are sons of deceased, who are working as Constable and Home Guard respectively. Both the petitioners are earning members. From the claim petition itself it is evident that the petitioners are not dependent on the income of the deceased. He further submits 9 MVOP.No.2346 of 2016 that the petitioner No.2 Mr. K. Bheem Reddy has filed an affidavit submitting that he is son of the deceased and has no interest in claiming compensation since, he is self sufficient and not dependent on his father. Further petitoner No.2 K. Bheem Reddy endorsed no objection to his brother to claim the compensation for the dearth of his father. He further submits that PW.1 deposed in cross­examination that “It is true that he is working as a Constable in Head Quarter Rachakonda Commissionerate East” the claim petitioner No.1 is major and working as police constable, who is not dependent on the earning of the deceased and there is no dependency on the deceased as he can live independently, and at present settled law the major sons are not entitled to any compensation under the heads of dependency and more over the deceased was more than 65 years old as on the date of alleged accident and he cannot earn at his old age and he was not the earning member in his family, as such this respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. From the above evidence it is evident that the petitioner No.1 is not dependent on the income of the deceased.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioners filed reply written arguments. It is submitted that the claim was made seeking for payment of compensation and damages for the death of the father of the petitioners who died in a motor accident at the age of 58 years due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

That the deceased father of the claimants was doing cultivation of Agricultural land at

Aathkur, and also doing dairy form and used to earn Rs.15,000/­ per month and annual yield of crops value is Rs.60,000/­ per annum and loss of estate is claimed by the petitioners as the deceased father of the petitioners was residing with them and used to contribute all his income for the family and therefore, the petitioners lost the aid income because of death of their father and therefore, the loss has to be compensated by the respondents and the petitioners did not claim as Dependants but

10 MVOP.No.2346 of 2016

only towards loss of estate and insurance company in order to avoid the payment is trying to confuse by drawing inferences that the petitioners are not dependents since they are major which is not the tenable plea or confusion, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable compensation from the respondents as prayed for.

9. ISSUE NO.1:­

To prove their claim, the 1st petitioner­ K. Balakrishna Reddy examined himself as PW.1 and got exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.9. Ex.A.1 is Certified Copy of FIR No.

211/2016 dated 05.04.2016. Ex.A.2 is Certified copy of Charge sheet dated 05.04.2016. Ex.A.3 is Certified copy of M.L.C dated 05.04.2016. Ex.A.4 is Certified copy of Death certificate(Summary) dated 05.04.2016. Ex.A.5 is Certified copy of

Post­Mortem Report dated 08.04.2016. Ex.A.6 is Certified copy of Panchanama dated 08.04.2016. Ex.A.7 is Certified copy of Scene of offence panchanama dated 05.04.2016. Ex.A.8 is Certified copy of M.V.I Report dated 13.04.2016. Ex.A.9 is

Original Income Certificate issued by Tahsildar dated 12.12.2017 and and perusal of contents of evidence of PW.1 would show that he has filed the above case for grant of compensation for the death of his father K. Ramachandra Reddy in a motor accident which took place on 04.04.2016 at about 23.00 hours while his father was crossing the road at Boduppal Kaman by walk, and at that time one Maruthi Wagaon R Car bearing No.TS 08 ER 4546 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without observing traffic rules and dashed to his father due to which he fell down on the road and sustained grevious injuries besides fractures. Immediately he was shifted to Adity Hospital, by 108 ambulance for first aid and after first aid he was shifted to

Apollo Hospital, Hyderguda, Hyderabad. While undergoing treatment he was died on 07.04.2016. Police Medipally registered a case in Cr.No.211/2016 against the driver of the said car bearing No.TS08ER 4546, who caused the accident. That at the time of accident, his father was aged about 58 years, and he was doing agriculture/running

11 MVOP.No.2346 of 2016

dairy from and he was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/­ per month on average and contributing his entire income for the maintenance of their family due to untimely death of his father they put to great hardship and untold mental agony besides irreparable loss. That the above accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver who drove the vehicle without observing traffic rules and caused the accident.

10. Perusal of contents of further chief examination of PW.1 would show that his father was having agriculture land Ac.2.24 guntas at Ankur village, and he personally cultivated lands by raising maize, chills, ground nut and used to get agriculture income of Rs.60,000/­ per annum and used to contribute all the income for the family and he is the only son to his deceased father who died in the motor accident and he deprived of the agricultural income same property could not be cultivated and he lost the agricultural income and therefore, he is entitled to claim loss of deficiency and earnings of Rs.60,000/­ per annum and therefore, he prays the court to grant the compensation of loss of income and depending as his father died in motor accident.

11.In cross­examination by counsel for respondent No.2­insurance company, PW.1 further deposed that it is true at the time of accident his father was crossing the road and that he (PW.1) was working as Constable in Head­Quarter Rachakonda

Commissionerate East and as per Exs.A.2 to A.7, the age of the deceased was 65 years and he has not filed any documents to show that the age of the petitioner was 80 years by the time of accident, the deceased took treatment under Arogya Bhadra

Scheme and as per Ex.A.4 the deceased was suffering from fever sing last 15 days associated with reduce urine, out­put distension of abdomen yellowish coloured urine and he further deposed that he has not filed any document to show that the deceased was having any bank account and he was not getting any income from agriculture and dairy farm and as per claim petition the father of the deceased was not an I.T.

12 MVOP.No.2346 of 2016

Assessee and he denied the suggestion that the deceased also contributed to the accident who without observing/following traffic rules and without asking minimum precautionary measures was crossing the road during night at 23.00 hours leading to the accident.

12.And in further cross­examination, PW.1 further denied the suggestion that his father was not doing cultivation and contributing the agricultural income to the family.

13.Here it may be noted that in the counter, the 2nd respondent­insurance company took a plea that the deceased was crossing the road without taking minimum precautions during night time at 2300 hours leading to the accident and

PW.1 also admitted in cross­examination that at the time of accident his father was crossing the road at Boduppal Kaman and from cross­examination it is clear that the deceased was suffering from fever for last 15 days associated with reduce urine, out­ put distension of abdomen yellowish coloured urine. PW.1 categorically admitted about the ill health of the deceased by the time and from this it is clear that the deceased also contributed to the accident without taking minimum precautions despite not keeping good health as he was suffering from fever for 15 days prior to the accident and accordingly, I hold that the accident occurred on account of contributory negligence of both the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle i.e Maruthi Wagon R vehicle bearing No.TS 08 ER 4546 and accordingly this issue is answered.

14. ISSUE NO.2:­

In deciding the quantum of compensation, I rely on the guidelines of the landmark judgment in the case of Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298). To prove the age of the deceased, the petitioner marked Ex.A.6

Inquest report, wherein the age of the deceased was shown as 65 years and the

13 MVOP.No.2346 of 2016

multiplier that applies is ‘7’(Seven).

15.Here according to the versions of PW.1, the deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/­ per month on average, but here he has not filed any authentic proof regarding income and relying on the rulings in the case of Ramachandrapa v Manager Ropyal

Sunderan reported in 2011 ACJ 2436 (SC), I consider his monthly income as

Rs.5,000/­, therefore, the annual income comes to Rs.5,000 x 12 months =

Rs.60,000/­. Since there would be personal expenditure had the deceased been alive a sum of Rs.40,000/­[Rs.60,000­20,000(60000 x 1/3= 20,000)] being 1/3rd of the annual income is to be deducted since the petitioners happened to be two in number and therefore under the head of loss of income, the petitioner would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,80,000/­(Rs.40,000 x 7 multiplier) if the dependency on the deceased is established. But here the petitioners utterly failed to establish their dependency on the deceased herein.

16.The petitioners are sons and they lost love and affection. Therefore, I am

awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/­ under the lost of love and affection and moral

support of the deceased.

17.Here it may be noted the petitioners have not diversified claim under different heads and they have claimed lumpsum amount of Rs.15,00,000/­ without diversifying.

18.The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the deceased was having agricultural land and he himself used to cultivate the same, but herein on that aspect also evidence is not satisfactory and even if the deceased is found to be doing cultivation in agricultural land, the agricultural land will remain and it does not disappear with the death of the deceased and all that the petitioners loose is the person supervising the same and therefore, I am awarding the sum of Rs.50,000/­ towards supervising charges.

14 MVOP.No.2346 of 2016

19.After the death of the deceased the dead body of the deceased was brought to the house of PW.1 and later to the place of cremation and therefore under the head

of transport, I am awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/­ towards transport charges.

20.The respondent insurance company examined one K. Balakrishna Reddy, the

Asst. Manager claims legal as RW.1 and perusal of contents of evidence affidavit of

RW.1 of his evidence affidavit would show that the Respondent No.2 has issued a policy No.OG­16­1803­1801­00062779 for Car bearing No.TS­08ER­4546. The policy is valid from 04.01.2016 to 03.01.2017 and was in force as on the date of accident i.e 04.04.2016, subject to terms, conditions, exceptions, limitations and liability of the policy. That the claim petitioner is major and working as police constable, who is not a dependent on the earning of the deceased and there is no dependency on the deceased as he can live independently, and at present settled law the major sons are not entitled to any compensation under the heads of dependency and more over the deceased was more than 65 years old as on the date of alleged accident and he cannot earn at his old age and he was not the earning member in his family, as such this respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. That the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased who without observing/following the traffic rules and without taking minimum precautionary measures was crossing the road in the night at 23.00 hours and caused the accident. Taking alternate pleading and without admitting any liability it is submitted that the negligence on the part of the deceased may be taken into greater extent.

21.In the cross­examination RW.1 deposed that Ex.B.1 policy was in force and here it may be noted during the pendency of the suit the 2nd petitioner who happened to be home guard gave up his claim and it is in the the nature of relinquishing in

15 MVOP.No.2346 of 2016

favour of the 1st petitioner who happened to be a constable. In this context it is pertinent to refer to the affidavit filed by K. Bheem Reddy the second petitioner K.

Bheem Reddy who is the younger brother of PW.1 and in the affidavit it is stated thus:

“ He is the 3rd party to the above proceedings he state that the above O.P. was filed claiming compensation for the death of their father Ramachandra Reddy. However, he has no interest to claim any compensation and he is self sufficient and not depending on their father and therefore, he endorsed no objection to his brother to claim the compensation for the death of their father as he got daughters and depending on the earnings of his father for supporting the family as he was living with his brother before his death. He do swear that he is not claim any compensation from the Hon’ble court or against the respondent and the entire compensation amount may be granted to his brother who filed claim petition before the Hon’ble court.”

22.As rightly contended by the learned advocate for 2nd respondent when a Home

Guard himself gave up his claim indicating that he was not a dependent on his father, the 1st petitioner who happened to be a constable is also to be found not a dependent on the father and moreover even according to their own showing the deceased was aged 65 years unable to move and in that event it is highly absurd to say that the petitioners are totally dependents on their aged father. The 1st petitioner being a police constable gets handsome salary when compared to his younger brother i.e 2nd petitioner herein who happened to be a Home Guard and here the 2nd petitioner who is just a Home Guard himself has given up his claim impliedly admitting that he was not a dependent at all on the deceased and when the 2nd petitioner being Home Guard impliedly admits that he is not a dependent, it is ridiculous and absurd to say that the 1st petitioner being a constable is a dependent on the deceased who was sufficiently old aged suffering from several old age related ailments. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

23.ISSUE NO.3:­

In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs by granting following reliefs:

16 MVOP.No.2346 of 2016

i)The petitioner No. 1 is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,15,000/­ (Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousand only), since the 2nd petitioner by his affidavit already gave up his claim, the 1st petitioner is entitled for the entire sum of Rs.1,15,000/­ (Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousand only). ii)The 1st petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit or realization with half of the costs. iii) The Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. iv)On deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled to withdraw entire compensation amount.

v)The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/­(Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only). vi)Time granted for deposit of the amount is (30) days from the date of this order i.e 31.07.2019.

vii)Rest of the claim is disallowed without costs. 

viii)The 1st petitioner shall pay court fee/additional fee, if any, if at all, the petitioner is exempted from pay as per rules.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court on this the 31st day of July, 2019.

Sd/-

XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For the Petitioners: For Respondents:

PW1: K. Balakrishna Reddy.RW.1: Vishwanadhula Nagaraju.

 Documents marked for the Petitioners:

Ex.A1: Certified Copy of FIR No.211/2016 dated 05.04.2016. Ex.A2: Certified copy of Charge sheet dated 05.04.2016. Ex.A3: Certified copy of M.L.C dated 05.04.2016. Ex.A4: Certified copy of Death certificate(Summary) dated 05.04.2016. Ex.A5: Certified copy of Post­Mortem Report dated 08.04.2016. Ex.A6: Certified copy of Panchanama dated 08.04.2016. Ex.A.7: Certified copy of Scene of offence panchanama dated 05.04.2016. Ex.A.8: Certified copy of M.V.I. Report dated 13.04.2016. Ex.A.9: Original Income Certificate issued by Tahsildar dated 12.12.2017.

Documents marked for Respondents: Ex.B.1: True copy of policy along with terms and conditions. Sd/­

XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­XXVI ADDITIONAL

CHIEF JUDGE :: CITY CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: SRI D. CHIRANJEEVULU, XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Wednes day, the 31 st day of July, 2019.

M.V.O.P.No.775 of 2015

Between:­

V. Goda Devi, W/o. Late Prarikshith Raghavan Kavi, Age: 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 3­4­448/2/1, Reddy College Road, Opp: YMCA, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. … Petitioner AND

1. M.L. Kameswara Rao, S/o. M. Shankar Rao, (Died) Aged about Major, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.8, Janapriya Maha Nagar, Balapur X Road, Meerpet, R.R. District. (Driver­cum­owner)

2. M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, 4th Floor, North East Plaza, Erramanzil X Road, Opp: RTA Office, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

3. L.R of Respondent No.1 M. Siva Shankara Ramakrishna Rao, S/o. M. Shankar Rao, Age: 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o.7208, Janapriya Mahan Nagar, Meerpet, Saroornagar, R.R. District.

Amended as per the Order in I.A.No.399/16 dated 03.05.2017.

Policy No.OG­14­1801­1801­000733324 valid from 12/01/2014 

to 11/01/2015.....Respondents

This petition coming on 25.07.2019 before me in the presence of Sri. P.V. Ramana Murthy, Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri B. Papa Reddy, Advocate

for Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 remained exparte and Respondent No.1

died and upon hearing both the counsels and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:­

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 and Rules 475(1)(B) of A.P.M.V. Rules 1989 R/w Section 140© of A.P.M.V.

2 MVOP.No.775 of 2015

Act, 1989 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/­ (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only).

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

On 17.09.2014 at about 6.30 hours, when the petitioner along with his friends were proceeding in a car bearing No.AP 29 BP 6576 from Hyderabad to

Banglore, when they reached near Gollapalli village on NH 44 Road, at that time, driver of the car drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the vehicle and dashed to the Culvert, due to which, the deceased Parikshith Raghavan Kavi and other inmates in the car died on the spot. Their dead bodies were shifted to Government Hospital, Ananthapur, for conducting postmortem examination. The above accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of car by its driver who drove the vehicle without observing traffic rules and caused the accident.

The Rapthdu police registered case against the driver of the car bearing

No.AP 29 BP 6576 under crime No.141/2014.

That due to the above accident, the deceased died on the spot. The deceased was hale and healthy at the time of his premature death. He was doing Future career Consultancy business and he was earning an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/­ per annum and he was contributing his entire income for the maintenance of his family. He was doing hard work, due to the above accident not only the claimant, but also his wife who has been put to great hardship and mental agony besides irreparable loss.

3.The Respondent No.1 died.

4.The Respondent No.3 remained exparte.

3 MVOP.No.775 of 2015

5.The 2nd Respondent No.2 i.e M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd filed counter generally denying the petition averments putting the petitioner to strict proof of the contents of the petition and the averments of the counter filed by 2nd respondent­insurance company are as follows:

This respondent admits that the interest of Shri K. Kameshwar Rao in the car bearing No.AP 29 BP 6576 and the same was covered at the material time under the policy of insurance issued by this respondent subject to the terms, conditions, exceptions and limitations thereof and the confirmation of the compliance of Sect.64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. The insurance policy issued by this respondent in favour of the Respondent No.1 bears No.OG­16­ 1801­1801­00073324 for the period from 12.01.2014 to 11.01.2015 and is in the possession of the insured i.e Respondent No.1. The insured may kindly be directed to produce the original insurance policy before the Hon’ble Tribunal, failing which, this answering opponent shall produce the copy of the policy which may kindly be exhibited and read in evidence. That the driver of Maruthi car bearing No.AP­29BP­6576 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and further was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license and further has not satisfied the requirements of the Rule No.3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The respondent No.1 willfully and knowingly handed over the vehicle to a person who was not possessing valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident and therefore, has contravened the provisions of the M.V. Act and the Rules framed there under and has committed the breach of the contract and violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, in view of the above stated breach

4 MVOP.No.775 of 2015

contract made by the respondent No.1, he is alone liable to pay the compensation to the claim petitioner and this respondent company has no liability to pay any compensation to the claim petitioner and it is liable to be dismissed against this respondent company. That this respondent seeks protection under Sections 147 and 149 of M.V. Act. That as per Section 134(c) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is mandatory duty of the insured/Respondent No.1 herein to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of deceased and the name of the driver and particulars of the driving license, but the insured/first respondent herein has not complied with statutory demand. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and the case is liable to be dismissed against this respondent for non­compliance of statutory demand. That as per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is mandatory duty of the concerned police station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of the information, but the Rathadu police station failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand. The petitioner claimed interest 12% which is highly excessive and same is contrary to Section 3 of Interest Act, 1978 and the observations of the various judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

The petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on non­pecuniary damages as per the observations of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. That this respondent does not admit and denies the allegation that Maruthi car bearing

No.AP­29BP­6576 was involved in the above alleged accident and it was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same with documentary evidence. That the deceased was travelling in the

5 MVOP.No.775 of 2015

insured car without wearing seat belt in violation of provisions of law. Hence, negligence of the deceased be considered in as much as use of seat belt would have reduced impact of accident which resulted in the alleged multiple injuries sustained by the deceased and his death thereafter.” If the court comes to the conclusion that applicants are entitled for compensation, if any, the contributory negligence on the part of deceased by not wearing seat belt may kindly be considered on higher side and the liability to pay compensation may kindly be apportioned accordingly. That this respondent does not admit and denies that the deceased was aged about 35 years and he was earning a sum of

Rs.4,00,000/­ per month by doing business and for want of knowledge denies the same. Hence, the petitioner is put to strict proof with documentary evidence regarding deceased age, income and occupation. Further the respondent for want of better particulars denies the relationship of the petitioner with the deceased since no document was served upon this respondent with regard to legal heir certificate/relevant legal papers of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. That this respondent does not admit and denies the allegations regarding the manner in which the alleged accident said to have occurred. The allegations that “on 17.09.2014 at about 6.30 hours, when the petitioner along with his friends were proceeding in a car bearing No.AP 29 BP 6576 from Hyderabad to Bangalore, when they reached near Gollapalli village on BH 44, at that time, driver of the car was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed and having lost control over the vehicle, dashed to the culvert, due to which, the deceased Parikshith Raghavan Kavi and other inmates in the car died on the spot.

6 MVOP.No.775 of 2015

Their dead bodies were shifted to Government Hospital, Ananthapur, for conducting post­mortem examination, and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same with documentary evidence. It is denied that there is nexus between the alleged accident and the death of the deceased. Without prejudice this respondent does not admit and denies that the Rapthdu police station registered a case in Cr.No.141/2014 under Section 304­A of IPC against the driver of Maruthi car bearing No.AP­29BP­6576. Hence, the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same with documentary evidence. That this respondent specifically denied that “It is submitted that due to the above accident, the deceased died on the spot. The deceased was hale and healthy at the time of his premature death. He was having a business in the name of future career consultancy business and he was earning an amount of Rs.4,00,000/­ per annum and was contributing his entire income for the maintenance of his family” and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same with documentary evidence. This respondent denies that the petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ on all the heads and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same with documentary evidence. That without prejudice to the rights and contention and without admitting any liability the answering opponent further submits that the claimant may be directed to furnish the details of the PAN No, NEFT form and

KYC details, which may be required as per the provisions of the IT Act. That the respondent No.1/owner of Maruthi Car bearing No.AP­29BP­6576 also died in the above said accident. Hence, the legal heirs of the Respondent No.1 to be brought on record and this claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the alone grounds of maintainability. That the petitioner has to prove that she is the

7 MVOP.No.775 of 2015

legally married wife of the deceased and there are no dependents of the deceased apart from herself.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:

1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi car bearing No.AP 29 BP 6576?

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

3.To what relief?

7.To prove her claim, the petitioner­ Smt. V. Goda Devi examined herself as PW.1 and got exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.7. On Respondents side, one

Vishwanadhula Nagaraju, the Asst. Manager­Claims Legal of Bajaj Allianz

General Insurance Co.Ltd., examined as RW.1and Ex.B.1 True copy of policy along with terms and conditions is marked.

8.The learned counsels for both the petitioner and respondent No.2 submitted written arguments.

9. ISSUES NO.1 AND 2:­

To prove her claim, the petitioner­ Smt. V. Goda Devi examined herself as PW.1 and got exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.7. Ex.A.1 is the Certified copy of FIR

No.141/2014 dated 17.09.2014. Ex.A.2 is the Certified copy of charge sheet

dated 17.09.2014. Ex.A.3 is the Certified copy of Post­Mortem Report dated

17.09.2014. Ex.A.4 is the Certified copy of Inquest report dated 17.09.2014.

Ex.A.5 is the Certified copy of M.V.I. report dated 17.09.2014. Ex.A.6 is

Income tax returns for the years 2013­2014 and 2014­2015. Ex.A.7 is

Succession Certificate of the petitioner and perusal of contents of evidence of

8 MVOP.No.775 of 2015

PW.1 would show that she filed the above case for grant of compensation for the death of her husband Parikshith Raghavan Kavi in a motor accident which took place on 17.09.2014 at about 6.30 hours, when her husband along with his friends were proceeding in a car bearing No.AP 29 BP 6576 from

Hyderabad to Banglore, when they reached near Gollapalli village on NH 44

Road, at that time, driver of the said car drove it in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed and lost control over the vehicle and dashed to the

Culvert, due to which, her husband and other inmates in the car died on the spot. Their dead bodies were shifted to Government Hospital, Ananthapur, for conducting post­mortem examination. Rapthdu police registered case against the driver of the car bearing No.AP 29 BP 6576 under crime No.141/2014.

That at the time of accident, her husband was aged about 35 years, and was doing business and he was earning an amount of Rs.4,00,000/­ per annum and contributing his entire income for the maintenance of the family, and due to untimely death of her husband, she has been put to great hardship and untold mental agony, besides irreparable loss. That the above accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of car by its driver who drove the vehicle without observing traffic rules and caused the accident. That due to the above said accident she lost her husband, who is the sole bread winner and lost financial, physical and moral support in her life. 

10.Here it may be noted that unless the petitioner is found to be legal representative of the deceased, the petitioner cannot make any claim for compensation for the death of the deceased and as such, first I deal with this crucial aspect regard the status of the petitioner and her relationship with the

9 MVOP.No.775 of 2015

deceased and whether she is legal representative of the deceased and if it is found that she is not legal representative of the deceased, it may not be necessary to deal with other issues. 

11. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the deposition of PW.1. In her cross­examination and the relevant portion of her deposition in cross­ examination is extracted as it is as below:

“It is true that I have not filed any document to show that I am the legally wedded wife of Parikshat Raghavan Kavi. It is true that my 1 st husband name is S. Venkatesh and I took divorce. It is true that I have not filed any document. I took divorce from Mr. Venkatesh through court. It is not true to suggest that, I have not taken divorce with Venaktesh legally, as such not filed any legal documentation proof. It is true that as per my chief affidavit my age is 50 years and deceased age is 35 years. As per the 161 Statement deceased wife name is mentioned as K. Muythili, witness adds that actually my name is V. Godhadevi but in my house and friends and relatives called as K. Mythili. It is true that I have not filed any document to show that, my name is K. Mythili as well as V. Godhadevi. It is not true to suggest that K. Mythili and V. Godadevi both are different. It is not true to suggest that deceased P.R. Kavi having mother and the mother of the deceased not made party to this OP. It is not true to suggest that non­joinder of mother of deceased this OP is not maintainable. It is true that deceased is having HDFC policies but I am not nominee to that policy. It is not true to suggest that I am not legally wedded wife of the deceased as such my name is not nominee in the HDFC policy. It is true that in Ex.A.7 my name is not mentioned as a wife of P.R. Kavi. Witness adds that I filed succession certificate for withdrawing of HDFC policy as a petitioner. It is true that succession certificate is filed for obtaining Sardurksha policy from HDFC. It is true that I have not filed any document to show that I am a legally wedded wife of the deceased. It is true that in policy records my name is not mentioned as a legally wedded wife to the deceased. It is true that I have not stated in my chief affidavit or claim petition to show that deceased was doing which type of business. It is true that I have not filed any document/bank statement to whole that, deceased was having Rs.4 lakhs per annum by doing business. It is not true to suggest that deceased not doing any business and not earning Rs.4 lakhs per annum. It is not true to suggest that the driver of car is not having valid driving license at the time of accident, hence Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. It is true that the owner and driver of car K. Kameshwar Rao and deceased was best friends. It is not true to suggest that deceased and driver and inmates of the car not wearied belt at the time of accident, as such deceased violated the provisions of law and deceased also contributed to the accident. It is not true to suggest that Exs.A.1 to A.7 are

10 MVOP.No.775 of 2015

created for the purpose of this case. It is not true to suggest that deceased is not having any income sources even though I filed in advance IT return for the year 2013­14 and 2014­15. It is not true to suggest that I am not ethical any compensation. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false for getting compensation.”

12.2nd respondent filed a petition to frame the additional issues 1) Whether the respondent/petitioner Goda Devi is the legal heir to the deceased? and 2)

Whether the OP is maintainable filed by the Respondent/petitioner? And this court dismissed the above said OP on 14.03.2019 citing that the issues are already framed and “The petitioner is entitled for compensation only when she is able to prove that she is legal heir of the deceased. Therefore the issues that are already framed on record are sufficient to adjudicate the main OP in proper prospective.”

13.Respondent No.2 filed a petition to direct the petitioner to provide details of mother of the deceased herein to implead as proposed party/Respondent No.3. The petitioner has filed counter submitting that she does not have any details of mother of the deceased and this court returned the above said petition with objections that to show the details of the deceased mother/proposed party in the petition.

14.On behalf of Respondent No.2­insurance company, it’s Assistant Manager

Legal was examined as RW.1 and marked Ex.B.1 policy copy. RW.1 deposed in chief­examination that the petitioner has deliberately failed to file any legal heir certificate on record to prove that she is the only legal heir of the deceased. Further petitioner has failed to file any cogent proof on record to show that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased. Hence, she cannot be claimed as wife of the deceased and that as per evidence of the

11 MVOP.No.775 of 2015

petitioner(PW.1), the mother of the deceased is alive and the petitioner deliberately did not make the mother of the deceased as party to the claim petition. Thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non­joinder of necessary parties and that without prejudice he submitted that the deceased was traveling in the insured car without wearing seat belt in violation of provisions of M.V

Act. Hence, negligence of the deceased be considered in as much as use of seat belt would have reduced impact of accident which resulted in the alleged multiple injuries sustained by the deceased and his death thereafter and that the petitioner herein has failed to file and prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and only legal heir of the deceased.

15.RW.1 deposed in cross­examination that “He has gone through Ex.A.7 (witness adds) it relates another claim and not to this present claim. In Ex.A.7 petitioner is shown as widow of the deceased in this case. They have not filed any document to establish that she was not the widow of the deceased herein. They have not filed any document to show that the mother of the deceased is still alive.

They have not filed any investigation report. He deposed as per their verification.”

16.The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that the burden of proof to prove that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the deceased and only legal heir of the deceased lies on the petitioner. That the petitioner has deliberately failed to file any legal heir certificate on record to prove that she is the only legal heir of the deceased. Further petitioner has failed to file any cogent proof on record to show that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased, hence she cannot be claimed as wife of the deceased. That the petitioner herein has not filed any document in support of her relation with the deceased. PW.1

12 MVOP.No.775 of 2015

deposed in cross­examination that “It is true that I have not filed any documents to show that I am the legally wedded wife of Parikshat Raghavan

Kavi”. That the PW.1 deposed in cross­examination that “It is true that her 1st husband name is S. Venkatesh and she took divorce. It is true that she has not filed any document. She took divorce from Mr. Venkatesh through court. It is not true to suggest that she has not taken divorce with Venaktesh legally, as such not filed any legal documentation proof.” From the above evidence it is crystal clear that the petitioner has failed to file any document in support that she is not wife of one Mr. S. Venkatesh. Hence, the petitioner is not a legally wedded wife of the deceased. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 further submits that “It is true that as per her chief affidavit her age is 50 years and deceased age is 35 years.” From the above evidence it is unbelievable and suspicion in nature that the deceased alleged husband of the petitioner is 15 years younger to the alleged petitioner wife. In general in the society the husband is aged more than wife. Therefore, the petitioner is not a legally wedded wife of the deceased. He further submits that the PW.1 deposed in cross­examination that “As per the 161 Statement deceased wife name is mentioned as K. Mythili, witness adds that actually her name is V. Godhadevi but in her house and friends and relatives called as K. Mythili. It is true that she has not filed any document to show that, her name is K. Mythili as well as V.

Godhadevi.” From the above evidence it is crystal clear that the petitioner has failed to prove that K. Mythili and herself are one and same, whereas as per the record, it is evidence that one K. Mythili is wife of the deceased. Further, neither in the claim petition nor in the chief­examination the petitioner has

13 MVOP.No.775 of 2015

never stated that she is also called in the name K. Mythili. He further submits that during investigation, respondent No.2 has come to know that the deceased mother is alive. This respondent has filed a petition to direct the petitioner to furnish the details of the deceased mother, wherein the petitioner has filed counter and stated that she does not have the deceased mother details. In view of the above circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the deceased mother need to be impleaded without which the petition is liable to be dismissed for non­joinder of necessary party. He further submits that the petitioner has failed to provide the mother of the deceased details and also failed to add mother of the deceased as party to the proceedings. Thus, the court may take adverse inference against the petitioner. He further submits that the PW.1 deposed in cross­examination that “It is true that deceased is having HDFC policies but she is not nominee to that policy. It is not true to suggest that she is not legally wedded wife of the deceased as such her name is not nominee in the HDFC policy.” From the above evidence, it is evident that the deceased has not cited the petitioner as nominee in any of the documents. He further submits that the PW.1 deposed in cross­examination that “It is true that in Ex.A.7 her name is not mentioned as a wife of P.R. Kavi. Witness adds that she filed succession certificate for withdrawing of HDFC policy as a petitioner. It is true that succession certificate is filed for obtaining Sardurksha policy from

HDFC.” From the above evidence it is crystal clear that Ex.A.7 only for a certain work i.e for withdrawal of policy. Further Ex.A.7 does not cite petitioner has wife of the deceased. Thus, the court may not consider Ex.A.7.

He further submits that the PW.1 deposed in cross­examination that “It is true

14 MVOP.No.775 of 2015

that she has not filed any document to show that she is a legally wedded wife of the deceased. It is true that in policy records her name is not mentioned as a legally wedded wife to the deceased.” He further submits that in any of the police records or any of the records, the petitioner is not cited as wife of the deceased.

From the above discussion, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden of proof with regard to relation as wife with the deceased. He further submits that Respondent No.2 filed a petition to direct the petitioner to provide details of mother of the deceased herein to implead as proposed party/Respondent No.3. The petitioner has filed counter submitting that she does not have any details of mother of the deceased and this court returned the above said petition with objections that to show the details of the deceased mother/proposed party in the petition. He further submits that during investigation, respondent No.2 has come to know that the deceased mother is alive. This respondent has filed a petition to direct the petitioner to furnish the details of the deceased mother, wherein the petitioner has filed counter and stated that she does not have the deceased mother details. In view of the above circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the deceased mother need to be impleaded without which the petition is liable to be dismissed for non­joinder of necessary party. He further submits that the petitioner has failed to provide the mother of the deceased details and also failed to add mother of the deceased as party to the proceedings. Thus, the court may take adverse inference against the petitioner. He further submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed for non­joinder of mother of the deceased, who is a necessary party to the petition. He further submits that

15 MVOP.No.775 of 2015

PW.1 deposed in cross­examination that “It is true that as per her chief affidavit her age is 50 years and deceased age is 35 years.” From the above evidence it is evident that the deceased age should be more than 50 years. He further submits that the petitioner has miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof with regard to the age of the deceased. He further submits that as per the contention of the petitioner in the claim petition and chief­examination is that the deceased was doing business and earning Rs.4,00,000/­ per annum.

PW.1 deposed in cross­examination that “It is true that she has not stated in her chief affidavit or claim petition to show that deceased was doing which type of business. It is true that she has not filed any document/bank statement to whole that, deceased was having Rs.4 lakhs per annum by doing business.” From the above evidence it is evident that the deceased was never did any business and never earned Rs.4,00,000/­ per annum. He further submits that PW.1 deposed in cross­examination that “It is not true to suggest that deceased is not having any income sources even though she filed in advance IT return for the year 2013­ 14 and 2014­2015.” From the above evidence it is evident that the IT returns are filed in advance only to claim compensation. Further the petitioner failed to produce any evidence in support of Ex.A.6 IT Returns.

17. Having regard to the evidence of PW.1 in her cross­examination, it can be safely held that the petitioner(PW.1) is not legally wedded wife of the deceased and since she is found to be not legal heir of the deceased, she is not entitled for any compensation and as she has categorically admitted in her cross­examination that in the policy records it is not mentioned as legally wedded wife of the deceased and since she is found not legal heir/legal

16 MVOP.No.775 of 2015

representative of the deceased she is not entitled for any compensation and in that view of the matter, it is not necessary to deal with the other aspects relating to rash and negligent driving or about dependency etc. Accordingly, these issues are answered against the petitioner and in favour of the 2nd respondent.

18.ISSUE NO.3:­

In the result, the petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances, each party shall bear its own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court on this the 31st day of July, 2019.

Sd/-

XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For the Petitioner: For Respondents:

PW1: Smt. V. Goda Devi.RW.1: Vishwanadhula Nagaraju.

 Documents marked for the Petitioner:

Ex.A.1: Certified copy of F.I.R No.141/2014 dated 17.09.2014. Ex.A.2: Certified copy of charge sheet dated 17.09.2014. Ex.A.3: Certified copy of Post­Mortem Report dated 17.09.2014. Ex.A.4: Certified copy of Inquest report dated 17.09.2014. Ex.A.5: Certified copy of M.V.I report dated 17.09.2014. Ex.A.6: Income tax returns for the years 2013­2014 and 2014­2015. Ex.A.7: Succession Certificate of the petitioner.

Documents marked for Respondents:

Ex.B.1: True copy of policy along with terms and conditions.

Sd/­

XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

Page No.1MVOP 2664/16

 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­XXV ADDITIONAL

CHIEF JUDGE :: CITY CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD

Saturday, the 20 th day of July, 2019.

Present: SRI D. CHIRANJEEVULU, XXVI Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

M.V.O.P.No.2664 of 2016 

Between:­

K. Yadagiri Reddy, S/o. K. Narsi Reddy, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.H.No.8­5­247/21, Adj. Sagar Enclave, Bairamalguda Ring Road, Saroornagar, Hyderabad­506079.

....Petitioner

AND

1. R. Naresh Kumar, S/o. R. Venkatesh, Aged about Major, Occ: Not known, R/o. Plot No.49, New Padma Nagar Colony, Karmanghat, Hyderabad­79(Owner of crime vehicle).

2. K. Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. K. Narsimha, Aged about Major, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No.8­1­3/49, New Padmavathi Colony, Karmanghat, Hyderabad(Driver of crime vehicle).

3. M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager(Claims), H.No.6­3­325/1, Osman Plaza, III Floor, Road No.1, Nagarjuna Circle, Banjara Hills, Punjagutta, Hyderabad­34.

(Policy No.3001/MI­03096474/00/000 valid from 08.10.2015 to 07.10.2016) … Respondents

This petition coming on 08.07.2019 before me in the presence of Sri. P. Ramesh, Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri G. Srinivasa Charyulu, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and Respondents No.1 and 2 remained exparte and upon hearing both the counsels and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:­ 2MVOP 2664/16

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and

Rules 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules 1989 R/w Section 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/­(Rupees Ten Lakhs only).

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

On 18.08.2016 at about 2.30 P.M while the petitioner was travelling in a

Waganor Car No.AP 29Q­2346 from Mall to Hyderabad when he reached CRIDA

Gungal at that time the driver of Swift Car No.AP­2982­1899 coming from Hyderabad, drove the car with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Waganor car in opposite direction, resulting which the petitioner received grevious injuries i.e Rt.

Subtrochanteric fracture, fracture of acctabulam, facial injury and injuries received all over body and immediately he was shifted to Global hospital for treatment.

P.S. Yacharam has registered a case in Cr.No.168 of 2016 under Sections 337 and 279 of IPC against the Swift car driver.

That due to the said accident he was bed ridden. His movements were restricted to bed only. The petitioner has lost income for not attending duties as the doctor advised him to take rest for about 4 months. That the petitioner has incurred huge expenditure towards treatment, transportation and extra nourishment. The petitioner is having great pain and anguish as he received grievous injuries. Due to the said accident, he got permanent disability. The said accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle and as such the respondents are held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner as per law.

3.Respondents No.1 and 2 remained exparte.

3MVOP 2664/16

4.The 3rd Respondent­ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company filed counter generally denying the petition averments putting the petitioner to strict proof of the contents of the petition. The averments of the counter in brief are that:

The petitioner has to prove the manner of the accident. It is further contended that the petitioner has to establish the involvement of the offending car i.e Swift car bearing No.AP­29BL­1899 and the petitioner has to further establish that the driver of the offending car Swift Car bearing No.AP­29BL­1899 drove it in a rash and negligent manner. The petitioner has to further establish the involvement of the offending vehicle. The petitioner has to further establish the injuries sustained by the petitioner treatment taken for the said injuries and medical expenditure involved in the treatment with authenticated proof. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to sole negligence/contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Waganor Car bearing No.AP 29Q 2346 in which the petitioner was traveling. It is further contended that the petition is bad for non­joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that the petitioner has to establish his monthly income @ Rs.25,000/­ per month as advocate with authentic documentary proof. The petitioner has to further establish that the medical expenditure with authentic proof. It is further submitted that as per 134© of M.V.Act, it is mandatory duty of owner/respondent No.1 herein to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of injuries and the name of the driver and particulars of driving license but the owner/first respondent herein has not complied with statutory demand. It is further submitted that as per

Section 158(6) of M.V Act, 1988, it is a statutory obligation on the concerned police officials to forward claims tribunal having jurisdiction about the death or bodily injury 4MVOP 2664/16 to any person, so recorded in the police station. It is further mandatory on the part of the concerned police officials to send all the relevant papers to the concerned insurer and the owner of the vehicle within 30 days from the date of information but the concerned police officials failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/­ is highly excessive.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:

1.Whether the injuries sustained by Sri K. Yadagiri Reddy S.o. K. Narsi Reddy in motor accident occurred on 08.08.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle Lorry bearing No.AP 29 BL 1899?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation if so how much and from whom?

3.To what relief?

6.To prove his claim, the petitioner­K. Yadagiri Reddy examined himself as PW.1 and examined PW.2(Dr. V. Sheker, Asst. Professor in Osmania General Hospital) and

PW.3(B. Venkataramana, Orthopedic Surgeon, Global Hospital) and got exhibited

Exs.A.1 to A.15 documents. On Respondents side, no oral evidence is adduced, but

Ex.B.1 copy of the policy is marked. 

7.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the entire evidence on record. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted the following citations:

1) II (2017) ACC 15 (CB) Madras.

2) 2007(1) An.W.R.216(A.P.).

3) 2015 ACJ 721.

4) 2015 ACJ 729.

5) 2010 ACJ 2486.

6) 2017 ACJ 2700 7)2009 ACJ 1298 5MVOP 2664/16

The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted the following citations:

1) 2006(5) ALC Page 50 AP.

2) 2004(5) ALD Page 423

3) Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Civil Appeal No.7430/2010.

8. ISSUE NO.1:­­

To prove the manner of the accident, the petitioner himself examined as PW.1 and got exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.15 and perusal of chief affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination would show that on 18.08.2016 at about 2.30 P.M while the petitioner was travelling in a Waganor Car No.AP 29Q­2346 from Mall to Hyderabad when he reached CRIDA, Gungal at that time the driver of Swift Car No.AP­2982­1899 coming from Hyderabad side, drove the car with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Waganor car in opposite direction, resulting which the petitioner received grevious injuries such as 1) Rt. Subtrochanteric fracture, 2) Fracture of acctabulam, 3)

Facial injury and 4) Injuries received all over body and immediately he was shifted to

Global hospital, Saroornagar, Hyderabad and got admitted there. He was undergone operation on 20.08.2016 where they have done surgical procedure i.e Closed interlocking nailing fixation of a shaft surtrochantric femur done and he was discharged on 25.08.2016. He has taken follow up treatment up to 19.01.2017 in the said hospital.

Even then, he could not able to get any pain relief which was occurred on his right femur hip joint. He has incurred a sum of Rs.2,06,891/­ towards his treatment in the said hospital. Out of which, Medi Assist India Pvt. Ltd. Paid a sum of Rs.1,46,048/­ and the balance amount of Rs.58,342/­ paid by him by way of cash. P.S. Yacharam has registered a case in Cr.No.168 of 2016 under Sections 337 and 278 of IPC against the

Swift car driver. He was aged about 57 years and he was practicing as an Advocate in 6MVOP 2664/16 various courts and used to earn a sum of Rs.25,000/­ per month. He is one of the

Senior Advocate practicing at District consumer Forum as well as State Commission,

Hyderabad and also he worked as President of District Consumer Forum for 7 consecutive years. He was empaneled by BSNL as well as Railway Board to look after their cases in District Consumer Forum and State Commission. The District Consumer

Forum Advocates Association issued a certificate in his favour on 10.07.2016 certifying that he is a practicing Advocate in District Consumer Forum, Hyderabad and District

Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy and A.P and Telangana State Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and he used to ear Rs.20,000/­ per month on his practice. Due to the said accident, he is having pain and he could not able to walk properly and he is waling with the support of stick and he cannot sit, squat and walk fastly and he cannot put any weight on his right leg due to functional disability, as such he cannot able to attend the court from the date of accident till today and incurring day to day loss. He is undergoing physiotherapy exercises since the date of accident by incurring Rs.5,000/­ per month from the date of accident till today. If he undergo physiotherapy exercises every day then only he can able to move from his bed or else he cannot move from bed. He has approached Dr. V.Sekhar, Asst. Professor, Department of

Orthopedic, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad on 30.06.2017 for assessing the disability suffered by him who examined him radiologically and clinically and issued a disability certificate in his favour and certified that he has suffered 35% disability. He is having great pain and anguish till today and as such he is entitled a sum of Rs.50,000/­ under the head of pain and suffering. After discharging from Global Hospital, he could not able to move from bed without any assistance for that he forced to engage one 7MVOP 2664/16 attendant by paying Rs.13,000/­ per month for a period of 2 ½ months. He has paid

Rs.33,500/­ to the said attendant and obtained a receipt. Apart from above, he has also provided food and shelter to the said attendant. He has incurred huge expenditure towards extra­nourishment, medical and transportation for a sum of Rs.20,000/­,

Rs.58,342/­ and Rs.20,000/­ respectively. The said accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Swift car driver. 

9.In cross­examination by the learned advocate for 3rd respondent, he further deposed that he was proceeding as a passenger in the said Wagonar car the accident occurred due to involvement of the said car and he has not filed driving licence of car driver of Wagonar car. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of Wagonar car and that there was no rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle i.e Swift car bearing No. AP­2982­1899. He further deposed that except Exs.A.9 to A.11 he has not filed any other documents like payment of remuneration or any to her vehicle or bank statements. He further deposed that he was not an I.T. Assessee and no I.T. Returns are filed. He further deposed that he was a practicing advocate and he further admitted that a sum of Rs.1,46,048/­ towards medical expenditure was already availed under Medi Assist India Pvt. Ltd. Scheme and as such the petitioner is not entitled for the same and he has not filed any documents to show that he sent Rs.50,000/­ per month towards physiotherapy treatment.

10.Here it may be noted that most of the cross­examination is focused on the aspect of medical expenditure and there is no worthwhile cross­examination relating to Issue

No.1 and moreover the petitioner (being the injured) is the best person to speak the manner of the accident and as against that evidence, there is no contra evidence on 8MVOP 2664/16 issue No.1 and thus, this oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with documentary evidence

Exs.A.1 to A.15 establishes that the accident occurred on 18.08.2016 was due to rash and negligent driving of Swift Car No.AP­2982­1899 by its driver and the said accident resulted in injuries to the petitioner and accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

11.ISSUE NO.2:­

During the examination of petitioner/PW.1, Exs.A.1 to A.15 are marked, of which Ex.A.5 is the Discharge summary and the relevant portion is extracted below:

“PRINCIPAL DIAGNOSES:

RIGHT SUBTRAOCHANTERIC FRACUTRE

FRACTURE ACETABULAM

FACIAL INJURY

SURGICAL PROCEDURE: CLOSED INTERLOCKING NAILING FIXATION OF # SHAFT SUBTROCHANTIC FEMUR done on 20.08.2016.

HISTORY:Patient admitted with alleged history of road traffic accident sustained on 18.08.2016.

ON EXAMINATION:

Patient conscious & coherent. PR­72/min BP­120/70mmHg CVS­S1+S2+normal Lungs – B/L clear. P/A­soft, BS+ All P.P. felt”

Ex.A.12 is Disability certificate issued by the Assistant Professor Department of

Orthopedic Osmania Hospital.

12.The contesting 3rd respondent is not seriously disputing about the genuineness of the discharge Summary referred above and as such, the same can be made basis for grant of just compensation.

9MVOP 2664/16

13.According to the petitioner, the petitioner was shifted to Global Hospital,

Saroornagar, Hyderabad and it is private hospital and after discharge from hospital he must have taken follow up treatment and in the normal circumstances, one cannot except receipts from the auto drivers or preservation of bus tickets and so it is absurd to insist for documentary proof. Therefore, keeping in view the nature of injuries and cost of living during the relevant period, I am of the view that awarding a sum of

Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees Five Thousand only) under the head of expenditure for

transportation is just and reasonable.

14.Under the head of loss of earnings, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ and according to him, he is a practicing advocate and he used to earn Rs.25,000/­ per month but he has not filed even a scrap of paper to establish his earnings of Rs.25,000/­ per month as advocate and he has not filed any I.T returns and he is not an I.T.

Assessee as admitted by him, but fact remains the petitioner is an advocate and I consider his monthly income as Rs.10,000/­ per month. Considering the nature of injuries and avocation of the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that two months complete rest is sufficient including the period of treatment and after treatment the petitioner could not attend the normal works and during that period of two months, there is every chance of loss of earnings. Therefore, under the head of loss of earnings, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/­(Rs.10,000 x 2) as compensation under the head of loss of earnings.

15. Under the head of medical expenditure, extra nourishment, damages, private attendant and incident charges, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.2,97,000/­ and the petitoner has filed Exs.A.5, A.6, A.8 and A.14 and during the cross­ examiantion, this 10MVOP 2664/16 petitioner(PW.1) fairly admitted that he has already availed a sum of Rs.1,46,048/­ towards medical expenditure under Medi Assist India Pvt. Ltd and as such he is not entitled for the same as admtited by PW.1 in cross­examination and perusal of his deposition would show that the petitioner sustained the following injuries:

1) Rt. Subtrochanteric fracture,

2) Fracture of acctabulam,

3) Facial injury and

4) Injuries received all over body and aftger discharge from the hospital the petitioner must have spent some amount for extra nourishment and tonics and therefore, while deducting the amount of

Rs.1,46,048/­ I am awarding a sum of Rs.1,52,000/­(Rs.2,97,000­ Rs.1,46,048=

Rs.1,50,952/­) under the relevant head of medical expenditure, extra nourishment, tonics and private attendant etc inclusive of the amount which the petitioner has already availed under Medi Assist India Pvt. Ltd. Scheme.

16.Under the head of pain and suffering, the petitioner claimed a sum of

Rs.50,000/­. Here the petitioner suffered 1) Rt. Subtrochanteric fracture, 2) Fracture of acctabulam, 3) Facial injury and 4) Injuries received all over body and because of these injuries the movement of the petitioner were restricted and certainly it would cause mental agony and the mental agony suffered by the petitioner cannot be translated into monetary value. Therefore, having regard to the above injuries suffered by petitioner, I am awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/­ (Rupees Twenty Five Thounsand only) under head of pain and suffering.

11MVOP 2664/16

17.The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.5,55,500/­ under head of continuing and permanent disability and the petitioner has filed disability certificate marked as

Ex.A.12 and in this context it is pertinent to refer to the depositions of PWs.2 and 3.

PW.2(Dr. V. Sheker, Asst.Professor in O.G.H) in his chief­examination deposed that one patient by name K. Yadagiri Reddy approached him for disability certificate on 30.06.2018, he has verified his previous treatment records. He sustained fracture acctabulam right subtrachnjric fracture, right femur. The patient treated earlier in

Global Hospoital. The patitent is having difficulty in sitting, squatting and runnig and he cannot lift heavy weights. He has examined the patient clinically and radiologically and and found that the patient is having disabillity of 35% which is partial and permanent in nature. Ex.A.12 issued by him. Due to the said disability he cannot climb steps and in cross­examination, this PW.2 further deposed that he has not treated the patient and he denied the suggestion that the degree of disability has assessed by him is higher side and he denied another suggestion that Ex.A.13 is created to help the petitioner.

18.PW.3­B. Venkata Ramana is Orthopedic Surgeon in Global Hospital who treated

Yadagiri Reddy­petitioner and he deposed that one patient by name Yadigiri Reddy

S/o. Narsi Reddy,Age 61 years. The patient was admitted in Global hospital on 18.08.2016 with history of R.T.A. The patient sutained following injuries:

1) On avaluation right subtrachaantric fracure fenuer.

2) Fracutre acctabulam right side.

3) Facial injruies on the right side.

The above injuries No.1 and 2 are greviouis in nature. After completing avaluation, the patient was taken up for surgery on 20.08.2016 under spinal anasthesia. After 12MVOP 2664/16 explaining all the risk factors. The procedure of right promimal pemural nailing was done post operative course of the patient was satisfactory and post operative check X­ rays showed good reducton. The rest of the stay of the patient in the hospital was satisfactory. The patient was discharged on 25.08.2016. At the time of discharge the patient was advised medication and non­weight bearing exercises at home. The patient required bed rest for mininum period of 12 weeks. The patient cannot climbing the steps and cannot be allowed to sit on the ground or scquat and this patient will require regular physiotheraphy and get training for proper rehabilitation. The patient came for follow up treatment on 31.08.2016, 22.09.2016, 15.10.2016, 05.11.2016, 12.12.2016, 19.01.2017. The femural nail which is kept for this type of fractures needs to be removed after a period of 2 years to 2 1/2 years. The patient also has acetabular fracture which may lead to post­tromatic arthorities. The attached prescriptions and hospital bills and pharmacy bills have been issued by Global Hospital and have been purchased as per the prescriptions. Exs.A.5, A.6, A.8 and A.14 are issued by their hospitals and in his cross­examination, this PW.3 further deposed that the contention of the petitioner was satisfactory when he was discharged and further deposed the injuries No.1 and 2 are simple in nature and this evidence of PW.3 shows that the condition of the petitioner was satisfactory when he was discharged and all the injuries were held up.

Further multiple fractures like femuer and acetabulam will not lead to post­operative problems or long terms effects and therefore, keeping in view the version of PW.3, I consider degree of disability as 10%. As already stated the monthly income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.10,000/­ and the annual income comes to Rs.1,20,000/­ (Rs.10,000 x 12) and as per the evidence available on record the age of the petitioner 13MVOP 2664/16 as on the date of the accident was 60 years and as per the guidelines in the ruling in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 2436 equavalent to 2009 ACJ 1298 multipler that applies to the case is 9(Nine) and keeping in view the above ruling and the annual income of the petitioner and keeping in view the ruling reported in 2010(4) ACJ 217 and the ruling reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the petitoner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,08,000/­(Rupees One Lakh Eight Thousand only)(Rs.1,20,000 x 9 x 10/100) including the compensation for continuing permanent disability, compensation for loss of future earnings, extra nourishment, damage to clothing and other medical expenditure and hence, I am awarding the same.

19.The tribunal did observe the abnormalities in the movements of the petitioner at the time of recording of evidence.

20.After considering all the heads, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,10,000/­(Rupees Three Lakhs Ten Thousand only).

21.The accident occurred by the reason of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Swift Car No.AP­2982­1899 and as such, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

22.ISSUE NO.3:­

IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents No.1 to 3 granting total compensation of

Rs.3,10,000/­(Rupees Three Lakhs Ten Thousand only) together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of presentation of petition i.e 16.11.2016 till the date of deposit or realization whichever is earlier.

14MVOP 2664/16

The Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and they are directed to deposit the amount within thirty days from today i.e 20.07.2019. 

After deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw half of the compensation amount and the balance shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of two years and the petitioner is also permitted to withdraw interest on the fixed deposit every half yearly. 

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/­. 

Rest of the claim is disallowed without costs.

 The petitioner shall pay court fee/additional fee, if any, if at all, the petitioner is exempted from pay as per rules.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on this Saturday, the 20 th day of July, 2019.

Sd/­

SRI D. CHIRANJEEVULU,

XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

FAC XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For the Petitioner: For Respondents:

PW1: K. Yadagiri Reddy. ­ None ­

PW.2: Dr. V. Sheker.

PW.3: B. Venkata Ramana.

 Documents marked for the Petitioner:

Ex.A.1: Certified copy of FIR in Crime No.168/2016 of Yacharam Police Station for the offences under Sections 337 and 279 IPC.

15MVOP 2664/16

Ex.A.2: Certified copy of Charge sheet in Cr.No.168/2016 of Yacharam Police Station for the offences under Sections 337 and 279 IPC. 

Ex.A.3: Certified copy of intimation give by Yashodha hospital to the Sub­Inspector of Police dated 18.09.2016.

Ex.A.4: Certified copy of medico legal record dated 18.08.2016 issued by Yashoda Hospital. Ex.A.5: Discharge summary of Aware Global Hospital, dt: 25.08.2016.

Ex.A.6: Review OP form issued by Aware Global Hospital. Ex.A.7: Inpatient credit bill along with other bills and its list.

Ex.A.8: C.T. Scan report. Ex.A.9: Letter dated 30.04.2007 issued by Senior Law Officer South Central Railway to the petitioner. Ex.A.10: Letter dated 31.01.2005 issued by Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited in 2 pages. Ex.A.11: Certificate dated 10.07.2017 issued by President District Consumer Forum Advocates Association. Ex.A.12: Disability certificate issued by Assistant Professor Department of Orthopedic Osmania Hospital.

Ex.A.13: Two X­Ray films. Ex.A.14: Certified copy of certificate cum policy schedule dated 03.10.2015 for the period from 08.10.2015 to 07.10.2016 pertaining to the vehicle bearing No.AP BN 1899 Ranga Reddy District. Ex.A.15: Certificate issued by Bar Council of State of A.P.

Documents marked for Respondents:

Ex.B.1: Copy of policy in respect of Swift Car No.AP­2982­1899.

Sd/­

SRI D. CHIRANJEEVULU,

XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

FAC XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­XXV ADDITIONAL

CHIEF JUDGE :: CITY CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD

Wednes day, the 17 th day of July, 2019.

Present: SRI D. CHIRANJEEVULU,

XXVI Additional Chief Judge,

FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

M.V.O.P.No.1114 of 2015

Between:­ T. Nagamani, W/o. T. Laxmaiah, aged 40 years, Occ: Tailoring, H.No.12­1­1122, Old Mallepally, Asif Nager, Hyderabad.

....Petitioner

AND

1. K. Anil Kumar, S/o. K. Prakash, Aged 27 years, Occ: Driver of crime vehicle, H.No.12­1­6/6, Sitaram Bagh, Asif Nager, Hyderabad.

2. Mohd Shoukat Ullah Khan, S/o. Mohd Liakatullah, Aged major, Occ: Owner of crime vehicle, H.No.16­6­281, Kattalguda, Osmanpura, Hyderabad.

3. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Officer, H.No.4­1­370/1, Beside Hotel Jaya International, Reddy Hostel Road, Abids, Hyderabad. (Policy No.10003/31/15/130436 valid from 16.06.2014 to 15.06.2015)

....Respondents

This petition coming on 10.07.2019 before me in the presence of Sri. C. Gowri Shanker, Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri K. Narender Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and Respondents No.1 and 2 remained exparte and upon hearing both the counsels and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:­

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and

Rules 475/B of A.P.M.V. Rules 1989 and 140(C) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/­ (Rupees Five

Lakhs only).

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

On 05.02.2015 while the petitioner was proceeding as pillion rider on her husband’s two wheeler Kinetic Honda bearing No.AP 28 P 9796, when they reached Rangamahal X road, Chaderghat, Hyderabad at the same time one Tata ACE AP 11 Y 5989 came with rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner’s vehicle, due to which they fell down on the road and she sustained grevious injuries and fractures. Thereafter she shifted to Sai Krishna Neuro Hospital, Hyderabad for surgery and treatment and she admitted as inpatient there on 05.02.2015 and discharged on 21.02.2015. She spent huge amounts towards medicine and treatment and her permanent disability causing much pain and suffering inspite of the treatment taken there is no improvement and the petitioner still feeling sick and unable to resume her normal duties and her movements are restricted. She spent total amount till her discharge an amount of Rs.2,50,000/­. That after discharge also she is spending lot of amounts towards treatment, medicine, nourishing food and transport and doctors advised her that there is future surgery also necessary to her implanting left pinna.

That P.S. Afzalgunj has registered a case in Cr.No.83 of 2015 dt: 06.02./2015 against the driver of the Tata Ace AP 11 Y 5989 and investigation also completed that reveals that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle Tata ACE.

That he was shifted to Sai Krishna Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment and operations due to fractures and injuries of petitioner herein, hence became helpless.

That the injured was hale and healthy at the time of accident and she was doing tailoring work. Doctors advised her to take rest for six months from the date of accident and it is very difficult to the petitioner to bear pain, hence, she completely depending on her family members.

­­3­­

That the respondent No.1 is the driver and Respondent No.2 is the owner of the crime vehicle and Respondent No.3 is the insurer of Tata ACE bearing No.AP 11 Y 5989 as such all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner a sum of Rs.5,00,000/­ together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and costs of the petition.

3.Respondents No.1 and 2 remained exparte.

4.3rd Respondent­Shriram General Insurance Company Limited filed counter generally denying the petition averments putting the petitioner Smt. T. Nagamani to strict proof of the contents of the petition. The averments of the counter filed by 3rd respondent insurance company in brief are as follows:

The petitioner has to prove her age, occupation, injuries sustained, the treatment taken and the medical expenditure involved in the accident. The petitioner has to further prove the manner of the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle. It is further contended that the liability of the 3rd respondent arises only when the owner of the offending vehicle compliance with the terms and conditions of the policy and the petitioner must establish that the vehicle involved in the accident was having Government permit and the petitioner has to further establish that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e Tata ACE bearing No.AP 11 Y 5989 is having proper and effective driving license to drive the same at the time of accident. It is further contended that the petitioner also contribute to the accident by her contribute negligence. It is further contended that the petitioner’s claim for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/­ is highly excessive. It is further contended that there are no merits in the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

­­4­­

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:

1.Whether the injuries sustained by T. Nagamani W/o. T. Laxmaiah in motor accident occurred on 05.02.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle TATA ACE bearing No.AP 11 Y 5989?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation if so how much and from whom?

3.To what relief?

6.To prove her claim, the petitioner­T. Nagamani examined herself as PW.1 and got exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.17 and the petitioner is examined PW.2 treating doctor i.e Dr. T.V.

Srinivas, Neuro Surgeon, Sai Krishna Neuro Hospital and A. Sunitha, Billing Manager of Sai

Krishna Super Specialty Neuro Hospital as PW.3. On Respondents side, S. Chandrashekar

Reddy, Asst. Legal Manager of 3rd respondent insurance company is examined as RW.1 and

A. Murali, Senior Assistant in RTA South Zone examined as RW.2 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.3 on their behalf.

7.Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the entire evidence available on record.

8.The Respondent No.3 filed a petition vide I.A.No.1206/2018 dated 08.08.2018 under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same was allowed permitting the

Respondent No.3 to avail all the defences that are available to the respondents No.1 and 2 as they failed to contest the petition.

9. ISSUE NO.1:­

To prove her claim, the petitioner­T. Nagamani examined herself as PW.1 and got exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.17 and perusal of contents of her evidence affidavit would show that on 05.02.2015 while she was proceeding as pillion rider on her husband’s two wheeler

Kinetic Honda bearing No.AP 28 P 9796, when they reached Rangamahal X road,

Chaderghat, Hyderabad at the same time one Tata ACE AP 11 Y 5989 came with rash and ­­5­­ negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner’s vehicle, due to which they fell down on the road and she sustained grevious injuries and fractures. Thereafter she was shifted to SaiKrishna Neuro Hospital, Hyderabad for surgery and treatment and she was admitted as inpatient there on 05.02.2015 and discharged on 21.02.2015. She spent huge amounts towards medicine and treatment and her permanent disability causing much pain and suffering inspite of the treatment taken there is no improvement and she is feeling sick and unable to resume her normal duties. She spent total amount till her discharge an amount of Rs.2,50,000/­. That after discharge also she is spending lot of amounts towards treatment, medicine, nourishing food and transport and doctors advised her that there is future surgery also necessary to her implanting left pinna and the costs for her future surgery is Rs.4,50,000/­. That P.S. Afzalgunj has registered a case in Cr.No.83 of 2015

dated 06.02.2015 against the driver of the Tata Ace AP 11 Y 5989 and investigation also

completed which reveals that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle Tata ACE. That she was hale and healthy at the time of accident and she was doing tailoring work, out of that she used to earn an amount of

Rs.12,000/­ per month. Doctors advised her to take rest for six months from the date of accident and it is very difficult to her to bear pain, hence, she is completely depending on her family members. That the respondent No.1 is the driver and Respondent No.2 is the owner of the crime vehicle and Respondent No.3 is the insurer of Tata ACE bearing No.AP 11 Y 5989 as such all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

10.In the cross­examination recorded by the learned advocate commissioner, she deposed that the driving license held by her husband is not filed into the court. She denied the suggestion that due to negligence of her husband only the accident occurred. She was ­­6­­ admitted in Sai Krishna Neuro Hospital and she was inpatient for (15) days and she denied the suggestion that Exs.A.2, A.3 and A.5 to A.17 are created. She further stated that she has not filed any documents to show that she was getting monthly income of Rs.12,000/­ on tailoring and she denied the suggestion that there was no any proof that she has spent a sum of Rs.2,50,000/­ for medical treatment and that she required 4,50,000/­ for future surgery.

11.Here it may be noted that the petitioner(T. Nagamani) being the injured is the best person to speak about the manner of the accident and as against her evidence there is no evidence on record to disprove the manner of the accident. Further she filed overwhelming documentary evidence marked as Exs.A.1 to A.17 and thus documentary evidence Exs.A.1 to A.17 coupled with the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 establishes that the accident dated 05.02.2015was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Ace AP 11 Y 5989 and the petitioner suffered injuries in the said accident and accordingly Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner and against contesting respondent No.3.

12.ISSUE NO.2:­

During the course of examination of PW.1, Exs.A.1 to A.17 are marked, of which

Ex.A.2 is the Certified Copy of injury certificate and the relevant portion is extracted below:

“ Head injury due to RTA/Diffuse Scalp Bhaematoma Multiple Lacerations of Scalp loss of Left Pinna in Toto/D.M.”

13.The contesting 3rd respondent is not seriously disputing the genuineness of Ex.A.2 and as such the same can be made basis for granting just compensation.

14.According to the petitioner, immediately after the accident she was shifted to Sai

Krishna Neuro Hospital, Hyderabad and it is a private hospital and she was inpatient there for considerable time and after discharge, she must have taken some follow up treatment and in the normal circumstances, one cannot except receipts from the driver of Tata ACE or ­­7­­ preservation of bus tickets and so it is absurd to insist for documentary proof. Therefore, keeping in view the nature of injuries and cost of living during the relevant period, I am of the view that awarding a sum of Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees Five Thousand only) under the head of expenditure for transportation is just and reasonable.

15.Under the head of loss of earnings, the petitioner is entitled for reasonable and just amount under the head of loss of income and according to her she was doing tailoring work and she used to earn a sum of Rs.12,000/­ per month, but she has not filed even a scrap of paper to establish her earnings @ Rs.12,000/­ per month on tailoring, but fact remains.

She is a tailor and a skilled labourer and relying on the recent ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Ramachandrappa v Manager Royal Sunderan reported in 2011 ACJ 2436 (SC), I consider her monthly income as Rs.6,000/­ per month. Considering the nature of injuries and avocation of the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that Three months complete rest is sufficient including the period of treatment and after treatment the petitioner could attend the normal works and during that period of Three months, there is every chance of loss of earnings. Therefore, under the head of loss of earnings, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.18,000/­ (Rs.6,000 x 3) as compensation under the head of loss of earnings.

16.Under the head of medical expenditure, extra nourishment, damages, private attendant and incident charges, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.2,45,000/­ and the petitioner has filed bunch of medical bills marked as Ex.A.11 where under according to her she paid an amount of Rs.2,09,380/­ and in this context, it is pertinent to look at the depositions of PWs.2 and 3. PW.2 is the treating doctor Dr. T.V. Srinivas, Neuro Surgeon in Sai Krishna Neuro Hospital and he is examined on commission and perusal of his deposition would show that one patient by name T. Nagamani, aged about 40 years, ­­8­­ suspect to R.T.A. has been admitted as inpatient on 05.02.2015 and the patient is found to following injuries:

1) Defuse scalp Hematoma.

2) Multiple laceration of the scalp.

3) Loss of pinna of left ear.

She was operated for the left ear by plastic surgeon Dr. N.S.Rao and the patient discharged on 21.02.2015. That to implant ear prosthesis, the costs for the same is approximately Rs.4,50,000/­. Ex.A.5 issued by their hospital. Ex.A.2 i.e. MLC issued by their hospital. For earing problem the patient should be evaluated by ENT surgeon and in his cross­examination he further deposed that Ex.A.10 is the discharge summary and he has not issued Ex.A.5.

17.PW.3­A. Sunitha, Billing Manager of said Sai Krishna Super Specialty Neuro

Hospital and she is also examined on commission and her deposition would show that one patient by name T. Nagamani admitted on 05.02.2015 and discharged on 21.02.2015 with history of R.T.A. The patient paid an amount of Rs.2,09,380/­ by way of cash. Ex.A.11 i.e final bill issued by their hospital. Ex.A.12 original cash advance receipts total 7 in number issued by their hospital for an amount of Rs.2,09,380/­. Ex.A.13 is the Original cash receipts issued by their hospital, total numbers in 3 covered Rs.1,220/­. Ex.A.8 is the original consultation cash bill issued by their hospital for an amount of Rs.500/­ and in her cross­examination, she further deposed that Exs.A.12, A.13, A.8 and A.11 are issued by their hospital and the bills ere issued as per the case sheet and she denied the suggestion that the bills were not raised as per the prescriptions of the doctors.

18.But here it is to be noted that there was no suggestion to PW.2, who is treated

PW.1. PWs.2 and 3 amply corroborated the version of PW.1 and absolutely I have no ­­9­­ reason either to suspect genuineness of Exs.A.1 to A.17 or the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 who are responsible doctors and billing manager and as such the petitioner is entitled for the said amount of Rs.2,09,380/­ spent under Ex.A.11 final bill and Ex.A.12 original cash advance receipt for and the bills in toto. After discharge from the hospital the petitioner must have taken extra nourishment and tonics and therefore, I am awarding a sum of

Rs.2,10,000/­ under the head of medical expenditure, extra nourishment, tonics and private attendant and future medical treatment inclusive of the amount spent under

Ex.A.11 i.e original inpatient final bill issued by Sai Krishna Super Specialty Neuro

Hospital for a sum of Rs.2,09,380/­.

19.Under the head of pain and suffering, the petitioner claims a sum of Rs.50,000/­.

Here the petitioner suffered the following injuries:

1) Defuse scalp Hematoma

2) Multiple laceration of the scalp

3) Loss of pinna of left ear and because of these injuries the movements of the petitioner were restricted and certainly it would cause mental agony and the mental agony suffered by the petitioner cannot be translated into monetary value. Therefore, having regard to the above injuries suffered by petitioner, I am awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/­ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) under head of pain and suffering.

20.Under the head of continuing the permanent disability, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­, but the petitioner has not filed any disability certificate nor did she examine any Orthopedic Surgeon to speak about such disability and infact there is no any scrap of paper even suggested that she suffered any such disability and as per ruling of out own Hon’ble High Court reported in case of United India Insurance Company Vs. J.

­10­

Komuraiah and others reported in 2010(2) An.W.R. 319(A.P) Para 6 of Justice C.V.

Nagarjuna Reddy that unless the petitioner files disability certificate she cannot claim any compensation under head of continuing or permanent disability and as such I am not granting any compensation under head of continuing or permanent disability.

21. The tribunal did observe the abnormalities in the movements of the petitioner at the time of recording of evidence.

22. After considering all the heads, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of

Rs.2,58,000/­(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand only).

23.The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Ace AP 11 Y 5989 and as owner of the offending vehicle­the 2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation, the 3rd respondent being the insurer is liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle.

24.Here according to the third respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having proper and effective driving license and to establish the same, the 3rd respondent examined S. Chandrashekar Reddy, Asst. Legal Manager of the 3rd respondent insurance company as RW.1 and perusal of his deposition would show that the Respondent No.1 is the driver of the vehicle and respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle and Respondent

No.3 is the insurer. That the respondent No.1 i.e. driver of the Tata Ace Van No.AP11Y 5989, K. Anil Kumar S/o. K. Prakash, who drove the crime vehicle is not possessing a valid driving license and the license which he possessed is a Light Motor Vehicle non­transport driving license but he drove a Transport Vehicle, with a driving license bearing

No.TS01220140007790 dated 14.10.2014, issued by Licensing Authority RTA Ranga

Reddy, as such owner of the vehicle i.e Respondent No.2 has violated the terms and ­11­ conditions of the policy by giving a Transport vehicle to a non­transport driving license holder on the date of accident, as such, respondent N.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

25.In cross­examination this RW.1 admits that policy was in force.

26.RW.2­A. Murali, Senior Assistant, RTA South Zone and he deposed that their office received summons on 30.11.2018 and asked them to produce driving license particulars of

Mr. K. Anil Kumar TS 01 220140007790 and accordingly, he produced. Regional

Transport Officer, South Zone, authorized him to depose under Ex.B.2 letter. Ex.B.3 is copy of extract of driving license of K. Anil Kumar and he was authorized to drive motor cycle with gear and light motor vehicle non­transport. He is not authorized to drive any heavy vehicles. Tata Ace van comes under heavy vehicles category and he cannot drive such vehicle and person who is having driving license transport only can drive Tata Ace

Van and from the evidence of RW.2 it is abundantly clear that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having driving license to drive offending vehicle and Ex.B.3 copy of extract of driving license establishes the same and therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, I hold that the 3rd respondent insurance company shall pay the aforesaid award compensation to the petitioner in the first instance and recover the same later from the insured i.e 2nd respondent herein and accordingly, this issue is answered.

27.ISSUE NO.3:­

 IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents No.1 to 3 granting total compensation of

Rs.2,58,000/­(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand only) together with interest @ ­12­ 7.5% per annum from the date of presentation of petition i.e 29.04.2015 till the date of deposit or realization whichever is earlier. The Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and they are directed to deposit the amount within thirty days from today i.e 17.07.2019. 

The 3rd respondent insurance company shall pay the aforesaid compensation to the petitioner in the first instance and recover the same later from the insured i.e 2nd respondent.

After deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw half of the compensation amount and the balance shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of two years and the petitioner is also permitted to withdraw interest on the fixed deposit every half yearly. 

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/­. 

Rest of the claim is disallowed without costs.

The petitioner shall pay court fee/additional fee, if any, if at all, the petitioner is exempted from pay as per rules.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court on this Wednesday, the 17 th day of July, 2019.

Sd/-

XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

FAC XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For the Petitioner: For Respondents:

PW.1: T. Nagamani.RW.1: S. Chandra Shekar Reddy.

 RW.2: A. Murali. PW.2: Dr. T.V. Srinivas. PW.3: A. Sunitha.

 Documents marked for the Petitioner:

Ex.A.1: Certified copy of the FIR with complaint dated 06.02.2015. Ex.A.2: Certified copy of the injury certificate issued by SKS Neuro Polytrauma hospital dated 16.03.2015. Ex.A.3: Certified copy of the petition seeking matter transfer to lok­adalat filed by the petitioner and accused dated 26.05.2015. Ex.A.4: Original copy of the Lok­adalat order in Criminal case on the file of II ACMM, Nampally in Crime No.83 of 2015. Ex.A.5: Original estimation certificate issued by International Prosthetic Eye Centre Treatment for Ear Prosthesis for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/­. Ex.A.6: Cash receipt issued by International Prosthetic Eye Centre for an amouint of Rs.350/­. Ex.A.7: Original cash receipt issued by Madan Medical Stores for Rs.775/­ and Moti Medical Hall for Rs.2,642/­. Ex.A.8: Original cash bill for Rs.500/­ issued by Sai Krishna Super Specialty Neuro Hospital along with doctor’s prescription dated 04.03.2015. Ex.A.9: Original photograph of the petitioner showing the injury. Ex.A.10: Original discharge summary issued by Sai Krishna Super Specialty Neuro Hospital dated 21.02.2015.

Ex.A.11: Original Final inpatient final bill issued by Sai Krishna Super Specialty Neuro Hospital paid by way of cash of Rs.2,09.380/­ dated 21.02.2015. Ex.A.12: Original Cash advance receipts total 7 in number issued by Sai Krishna Super Specialty Neuro Hospital for an amount of Rs.2,09,380/­ 

dated 05.02.2015, 06.02.2015, 07.02.2015, 08.02.2015, 11.02.2015,

12.02.2015 & 21.02.2015. Ex.A.13: Original cash receipts(3 Nos) issued by Sai Krishna Super Specialty Neuro Hospital for an amount of Rs.1,220/­ dated 4.03.2015, 04.03.2015 and 18.03.2015 respectively. Ex.A.14: Xerox copy of driving license of Respondent No.1­driver 

dated 14.10.2014.

Ex.A.15: Xerox copy of particulars of the crime vehicle dated 18.10.2014. Ex.A.16: Xerox copy of the insurance policy issued by Respondent No.3

dated 16.06.3024.

Ex.A.17: Xerox copy of the Aadhar card belongs to the petitioner.

 Documents marked for Respondents:

Ex.B1: Copy of certificate­cum­policy schedule with policy No. 10003/31/15/130436 for the period from 16.06.2014 to 15.06.2015 issued by the Authorised Signatory, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited. Ex.B2: Letter written by Regional Transport Officer South Zone. Ex.B3: Copy of extract of driving license of K. Anil Kumar.

Sd/­

XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

FAC XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

Page No.1AS No.170/14

IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, this the 26th day of July, 2019.

Present: SRI D. CHIRANJEEVULU, XXVI Additional Chief Judge, FAC: XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

A.S.No. 170/2014.

Between:-- 1- Noor Jahan Begum w/o Shaik Abdul Nabi Chowdhri A/a.51 years, Occ: Household 2-Shaik Khalil Ahmed s/o Shaik Abdul Nabi Chowdhri, A/a.26 years, Occ: Business. (Both are r/o H.No.19-3-300/33/1, Vattepalli, Fatima Nagar, Hyderabad) … Appellants/Plaintiffs.

AND Syed Mohd. Iqbal Hashmi s/o Syed Mohd. Ismail Hashmi, A/a.44 years, Occ; Not known r/o 19-3-294/4, Vattepalli, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.

... Respondent/Defendant.

APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24-09-2013 IN O.S.NO.2935/2007 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VIII JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, AT HYDERABAD

O.S.No.2935/2007

Between: 1- Noor Jahan Begum w/o Shaik Abdul Nabi Chowdhri A/a.51 years, Occ: Household 2-Shaik Khalil Ahmed s/o Shaik Abdul Nabi Chowdhri, A/a.26 years, Occ: Business (Both are r/o H.No.19-3-300/33/1, Vattepalli, Fatima Nagar, Hyderabad) … Plaintiffs.

AND Syed Mohd. Iqbal Hashmi s/o Syed Mohd. Ismail Hashmi, A/a.44 years, Occ; Not known r/o 19-3-294/4, Vattepalli, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.

... Defendant.

Page No.2AS No.170/14

This appeal suit is coming on 15-07-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Dhananjaya, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and that of Sri Md. Osman Shaeed, Advocate on behalf of defendant and upon hearing the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:J U D G M E N T:

1.This is an appeal preferred by the Appellants/Plaintiffs against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 24-09-2013 passed in

O.S.No.2935/2007 on the file of VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad.

2.The parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendant as they are arrayed in the suit before the Lower Court, for the sake of convenience.

3.The plaintiffs filed the suit before the Lower court seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, henchmen etc., from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property without due process of law.

4.The brief averments in the plaint are that one Abdul Nabi Chowdari , who is the husband of the plaintiffs No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and gifted the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs under a registered gift deed, dt.28-8-2006.

Thus, the plaintiffs became the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. The defendant filed OS No.4440/2003 before VIII Junior

Civil Judge, against Abdul Nabi Chowdari which was dismissed on 01-02-

Page No.3AS No.170/14 2007. Therefore, the defendant developed enmity and with a malafide intention to harass the plaintiffs and Abdul Nabi Chowdari , the defendant tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property on 14-6-2007 but failed in his ill attempts. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking perpetual injunction.

5-The defendant filed written statement before the Lower Court denying all adverse allegations and submitted that the property bearing No. 19-3- 300/3/1 which the plaintiffs are claiming is not a correct one. Abdul Nabi

Chowdari filed OS 6516/2007 on 10-9-2007 wherein he claimed that he is the owner of H.No.19-2-300/33 and the said house number do not exists in the locality at all. Hence, the defendant filed OS 4440/2003 against Abdul Nabi

Chowdari which was dismissed and the appeal is pending. There is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit. The plaintiffs and Abdul Nabi

Chowdari do not have any right or connection with the suit schedule property which is part and parcel of the other property of the defendant. The defendant is owner of property including the suit schedule property admeasuring 690 sq.

yards and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and it’s adjacent property , and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

7-Basing on the respective pleadings of the parties, the Lower court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs established their possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

Page No.4AS No.170/14

2. Whether the defendant rebutted the claim of the plaintiffs?

3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction?

4.To what relief?

8-During the course of trial, plaintiffs got examined PW-1 and got marked Exs. Al and A2 and in the cross examination of DW1. Ex.A1 is the

Gift deed, dt.28-8-2006, Ex.A2 is the C.C. of Judgment in OS 4440/2003 and 2679/2002, On confrontation, the plaintiffs marked Exs.A3 to A8. Ex.A3 is the Chief affidavit of DW1 which was returned, Ex.A4 and A5 are the

Decree and Judgment passed in OS 5781/2007, dt.22-6-2011, Ex.A6 is the

Copy of FIR in Cr.No.175/2007, Ex.A7 and A8 are the C.Cs. of common judgment and decree in OS 4440/2003 and 2697/2002, dt.1-2-2007. On behalf of the defendant, DW1 is examined and got marked Exs.Bl to B13.

Ex.B1 is the Gift Settlement Deed, dt.16-8-2007, Ex.B2 is the Cash receipt, dt.13-9-2010, Ex.B3 is the electricity bill, Ex.B4 is the C.C. of judgment in

CC No.391/2009, dt.3-12-2010, Ex.B5 is the C.C. of docket order in MC

No.B/304/2003, dt.15-3-2011, Ex.B6 is the C.C. of deposition of DW 1 in OS 5781/2007, Ex.B7 is the C.C. of judgment and decree in OS 6516/2007, dt.20- 2-2009, Ex.B8 is the C.C. of judgment and decree in OS 11112/2003, dt.29-6- 2009, Ex.B9 is the Certificate of Registration, dt.10-6-1997, Ex.B10 is the

Photographs (18 in number) with CD, Ex.B11 is the C.C. of docket order in

MC B/304/2003, dt.15-3-2011, Ex.B12 is the C.C. of judgment in CC 391/2009, dt.3-12-2010, and Ex.B13 is the Photographs (5 in number) along with CD.

9.After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the lower court has dismissed the suit, without costs.

Page No.5AS No.170/14

10.Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court dated 24-09-2013 passed in O.S.No.2935/2007 on the file of VIII Junior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad , the plaintiffs who are Appellants herein preferred the above appeal on various grounds stating that the trial Court has not considered the case put forth by the plaintiffs and the documents filed by them in proper perspective and the trial Court without considering the documents has dismissed the suit.The trial Court has totally misread the evidence of PW1 and not considered the documents Exs.Bl to B13 and ought to have decreed the suit relying upon them. The trial Court has failed to considered the admission of the DW1 to the effect that the plaintiffs are in possession of suit schedule property and ought to have decreed the suit and there is no dispute with regard to the possession of the plaintiffs n and over the suit schedule property by the defendant.

11-It is further contended that the trial Court ought to have seen that DW1 having alleged that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property to an extent of 110 sq. yards and in the cross examination has stated that he does not know the extent of the property plaintiffs are in possession, which evidence coupled with admission goes to show that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property to an extent of 266.66 sq. yards as stated in Ex.A1. The trial Court also failed to consider the settled law that the pleadings have to be proved by way of evidence in as much as the defendant having alleged that the plaintiffs are in possession of 110 sq. yards has not spoken about the same with regard to the extent of property in possession of the plaintiffs in his chief examination. Therefore, the trial Court ought to not to have ventured into the

Page No.6AS No.170/14 issue of whether the plaintiffs have proved that they are in possession of 266.66 sq. yards when the same is not rebutted or questioned by the DW1 in his chief examination, therefore, the said findings are uncalled for and erroneous therefore, liable to be set aside.

12.In appeal, no evidence was adduced by either party and no documents are marked.

13.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the impugned judgment and decree

dated 24-09-2013 passed in O.S.No.2935/2007

on the file of VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad suffers from any infirmity , either on facts or on law and the same is liable to be set aside?

13.POINT:-

The learned Advocate for the appellants/plaintiffs submit that the trial

Court has totally mislead the evidence of PW1 and passed the impugned judgment and decreed without proper appreciation of oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence filed by the plaintiffs. It is further contended that the trial Court has not considered Exs.Bl to B13 which supported the case of plaintiffs and the lower Court ought to have seen that DW1 has stated that he does not know the extent of the property in possession of the plaintiffs. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs that the findings with re- gard to the extent of property is uncalled for. Per contrary, the counsel for the defendant submits that the lower court having thoroughly examined oral and documentary evidence passed Judgment and Decree applying the correct

Page No.7AS No.170/14 principles of law arrived at correct conclusion and the impugned judgment does not suffers from any infirmity, either on facts or on law and it brooks no interference in the present appeal.

14-Here, according to the plaintiffs, they have been in possession and en- joyment of the suit schedule property which was gifted and it is their further case that the defendant filed suit in OS 4440/2013 and the said suit was dis- missed and so the defendant developed la ground against Abdul Nabi and so he tried to interfere with plaintiffs’ possession over the suit schedule prop- erty .

15-It is the case of the defendant that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of his property and total propriety for which he is the owner is 690 sq.

yards bearing H.No.19-3-294/5 and it is in the name of Abdul Fazal Educa- tional and Cultural Society. In the gift deed of the plaintiffs, dt.28-8-2006 and in the plan, the suit schedule property number is 19-3-300/33/1 but in OS 6516/2007 filed by Abdul Nabi Chowdari, the number of the property is 19- 2-300/33 and he said that he is the owner of the property. Neither the plain- tiffs nor Abdul Nabi Chowdari has any right over the suit schedule property.

In Ex.A1 registered gift deed executed by Abdul Nabi Chowdari, wherein he mentioned that he is the absolute owner and peaceful possession of the said property having acquired the same by virtue of inheritance.

16-The counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the defendant admitted the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and also admitted that the plaintiffs are his neighbours on the eastern side of his property. That

Page No.8AS No.170/14 in OS 5781/2007 the defendant herein had shown the address of the plaintiffs herein who are the defendant in the said suit, as residents of H.No.19-3- 300/33/1 i.e., the suit schedule property and he had also shown the suit sched- ule property herein as neighbours property on eastern side boundary of the suit schedule property in the said suit and that in his cross examination, DW1 had also given the correct boundaries of the suit schedule property and further admitted that he is no way concerned with the suit schedule property and he drawn the attention of the lower Court to the relevant portion of cross exami- nation of DW1.

17-In view of the information elicited in the cross examination of DW1, it is established by the plaintiffs , ,apart from Ex.A1 gift deed that they are in possession of the suit schedule property It is contended that the documents filed by the defendant do not pertain to the present suit and Ex.A3 i.e., the chief affidavit returned to DW1 i.e., 2nd plaintiffs herein in OS 5781/2007 on the file of lower Court, cannot be taken into consideration as deposition of a living person is inadmissible for contradiction. The counsel further con- tended that the chief affidavit of DW1 does not reveal his case in the written statement and it is the replica of the chief affidavit filed by him as PW1 in OS 5781/2007.

18-The counsel for the plaintiffs relied on a decision reported in 2006(6)

ALT 401 in B. Mahalakshmi vs. G. Apparao wherein it is held that deposition of a person cannot be received in evidence as it can only be used for contra- diction as per Sec. 145 of the evidence Act and also relied on the decisions re- ported in AIR 2004 SC 4609 in Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu and in 2010 (6) ALD 382 in Y. Venkata Reddy Vs. A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyder-

Page No.9AS No.170/14 abad and others in support of his case. Now it is to be seen whether the defendant admitted the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property admeasuring 266.66 sq. yards and whether the plaintiffs has proved their possession over the total extent of the suit schedule property .

19-The counsel for the defendant contended that there are contradictions in the cross examination of PW1 and he does not know as to on what date the alleged cause of action occurred and as to how he acquired the property and that the plaintiffs have to prove as to under what documents, they got posses- sion over the property adm., 266.66 sq. yards. The defendant admitted the possession of the plaintiffs only on 110 sq. yards and in the judgment in OS

No.5781/2007 i.e., Ex.A5 the plaintiffs herein are the owners of 110 sq.

yards of land and they constructed a house on the said area ten years back and they are trying to encroach 150 sq. yards of land which belongs to him and that no doors or windows are opened into this land.

20-In the cross examination, PW1 stated that the 1st plaintiff is his mother.

His mother is suffering from pain in her legs and therefore, she does not come to the Court to give evidence and he does not know what is written in his chief affidavit and in the plaint and that till the date of deposition also, he does not know who is the defendant. He stated that the suit schedule property is 266.66 sq. yards and he deposed about the boundaries of the suit schedule property. He stated that he does not know the name of the neighbour. He fur- ther stated that the original owner of the suit schedule property is Syed

Mohinuddin and he is residing at Hyderabad. He further stated that he has not seen the original document of his father and the extent of the property and

Page No.10AS No.170/14 that his father only knows that. He knows that the suit schedule property is assessed by the MCH but has not seen the assessment certificate and his father knows about it and he does not know whether the suit schedule prop- erty is mutated in his name in the MCH or not . He further deposed that the main door of the suit schedule property opens on the eastern side and he does not know whether the built up area of the suit schedule property is 110 sq.

yards or not. PW1 further stated that he cannot identify the defendant and that he had never seen him earlier to the suit. PW1 denied the suggestion that the open place belongs to the religious institution.

21-Thus, as seen from the cross examination of PW1, it is full of contra- dictions. He does not even know as to what is the extent of the suit schedule property in which the house was built and he cannot say as to how much por- tion was gifted to him. Moreover, from the suggestions put to PW1 in his cross examination, it can be said that the defendant admitted possession of the plaintiffs only on 110 sq. yards on which the house was built and he is disput- ing the possession of the plaintiffs over the remaining open place. Whereas, the defendant admitted that the suit schedule property bears No.19-3- 300/33/1 and it is a correct number and he also stated that he does not know the extent of the property purchased by Syed Abdul Nabi Chowdari. Con- trary to the recitals in Ex.A1, PW1 stated in his cross examination that his fa- ther purchased the property from one Syed Mohinuddin.

22-In a suit for injunction simplicitor also, the Court can refer to the title in the limited context to understand the claim of the respective parties in the

Page No.11AS No.170/14 suit schedule property as held in the case reported in 2010 (6) ALD 382 in

Y. Venkata Reddy Vs. A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad and others . The plaintiffs did not choose to file any document except Ex.A1 Gift Deed to show the extent of the property actually purchased by the donor though it is the specific case of PW2 that his father purchased the property from Syed

Moinuddin. Whereas, the case of the defendant all through is that the plain- tiffs are in possession of only 110 sq. yards and are not in possession of 266.66 sq. yards. In the suit in OS No.2935/2007 the lower Court has ap- pointed an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and as per his report, on the western side , there is an open yard consisting of big rocks and the room shown in the plan is not in ex- istence and that the entire building is constructed at one period. The plain- tiffs filed objections to the report submitted by the Commissioner and stated that the room mentioned in the gift deed was subsequently demolished. This fact of demolition of the room in the open yard is no where stated by the plaintiffs and the Commissioner was also not cross examined on the report.

In view of the contradictions in the cross examination of PW1 , the plaintiffs failed to prove their settled possession over the suit schedule property admeasuring 266.66 sq. yards and it can be said that the defendant had rebut- ted the claim of the plaintiffs.

23-Further, in the cross examination, PW1 deposed that he does not know the defendant and he had never seen him and he does not know what hap- pened on 14-6-2007 i.e., the alleged date of cause of action and thus, it clearly said that whether the plaintiffs never had any cause of action to file

Page No.12AS No.170/14 the suit. Moreover, as rightly observed by the lower Court, the plaintiffs failed to establish their possession over the suit schedule property to an extent of 266.66 sq. yards though there is no dispute with respect to their possession over 110 sq. yards as on the date of filing of the suit since the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit is crucial aspect in a suit filed for the relief of permanent injunction and as rightly observed by the lower Court, , the suit is filed without any cause of action and in my considered view, the lower Court thoroughly examined oral and documentary evidence in a right perspective applying the correct princi- ples of law arrived at correct conclusion and the impugned judgment and de- cree does not suffer from any infirmity, either on facts or on law, and as such, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs.

IN THE RESULT, the present appeal in AS No.170/2014 is dismissed with costs confirming the impugned judgment and decree, dt.24-09-2013 in

OS No.2935/2007 on the file of VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pro-

nounced by me in the open Court, on this the 26th day of July, 2019.

Sd/-

SRI D. CHIRANJEEVULU,

XXV Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: -Nil-

Sd/-

SRI D. CHIRANJEEVULU,

XXV Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad.