Sri D.Nagarjun

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: D. Nagarjun, I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this the 1st day of October, 2015

M.V.O.P. No. 479 of 2008 Between:

J. Balraju, S/o. J. Narsimha, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Mason, Rep. by his wife Smt. J. Balamani, W/o. J. Balaraju, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H. No. 1-26, Hydershawkote (V) Rajendranagar (M), R.R. Dist. … Petitioner AND

1.B. Agi REddy, S/o. Buchi Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 9-8, Chevella (V) & (M), R.R. District – 501 503

2.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, D. No. 6-3-905, Sabu Towers, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500 082. … Respondents

This Petition coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.

Krishna, Counsel for Petitioner and Sri M. Guru Dutt , Counsel for Respon- dent No. 2 and Respondent No. 1 remained exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed U/Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicle Act and under

Rules 455 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules claiming lumpsum compensation amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by the Petitioner. Originally this petition is filed by the Petitioner claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- but subsequently as per the Orders, dt.

22-11-2010 in I.A. No. 447/2010 the claim of compensation was enhanced from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/-. As per the Order, dt. 22-11-2010 in I.A. No. 549/2010 the wife of the petitioner was permitted to represent the case on behalf of the Petitioner.

2

2.The facts in brief as can be gathered from the record goes to show that on 25/11/2007 while the petitioner was proceeding on cycle from

Shadhan Hospital towards Hydershawkote and when he reached near Are

Maisamma Temple, a Car bearing No. AP 13 E 6967 came in high speed in rash and negligent manner in the same direction and dashed the cyclist from behind at about 6.45 PM. Due to which the Petitioner fell down on the road along with cycle and sustained grievous injuries. The Petitioner sustained head injury, fracture of left leg, fracture of left clavicle, fracture of left maxilla, multiple injuries all over the body. The Petitioner was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet Branch where he was treated as inpatient from 25/11/2007 to 08/12/2007 where. During the course of treatment the Petitioner was operated for his leg by inserting rod. After discharge from the Yashoda Hospital, the Petitioner was admitted in

Premier Hospital, Nanal Nagar X Road, where he was treated from 08/12/2007 to 02/01/2008. The Petitioner has spent nearly Rs. 2 lakhs.

The Petitioner is aged about 38 years and used to work as mason and was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. Moreover the petitioner is one of the family earning member.

3.The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle which belongs to Respondent No. 1 and it is insured with

Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company. Therefore, the Petitioners claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the Respondents. After amendment of the petition as per the Orders passed in I.A. No. 447/2010, the

Petitioner submitted that he is still taking treatment as outpatient and already three years has been lapsed. After filing the case a sum of Rs.

1,00,000/- was spent towards his treatment. For removal of the rod inserted in his leg the doctor advised the Petitioner that an amount of Rs.

3 1,00,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- is needed. Further, the Medical Board of

Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad issued disability certificate assessing total disability @ 85%. The Petitioner has been suffering from partial unsound mind and he is unable to walk and cannot do anything. Therefore, the

Petitioner claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the Respondent

Nos. 1 and 2.

4.The Respondent No. 1 owner of the crime vehicle remained exparte.

5. The Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments of the petition and contended that the alleged injuries said to have occurred are not supported by any medical record and the compensation claimed by the Petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. It is also contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving license and finally prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

6.The Respondent No. 2 has filed petition under section 170 of Motor

Vehicle Act seeking permission to take all possible defences which the owner of the crime vehicle was expected to take. The said petition was allowed and thereby Respondent No. 2 has taken all the defences.

7. Basing on the pleadings, my predecessor in office has settled the following issues for trial:

I. Whether the Petitioner sustained injuries in a Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 25/11/2007 due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing

No. AP 13 E 6967 by its driver?

II.Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and if so how much amount and from which of the Respondents?

III. To what relief?

4

8. During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. A1 to

A9 are marked on behalf of the petitioners. On behalf of the Respondents no oral evidence is adduced except Exs. B1 and B2. Exs. C1 and C2 are marked on behalf of Court.

9.Heard both sides and perused the record.

10. ISSUE No. I: It is contended by the Petitioner that on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle the accident has occurred, due to which he sustained injuries. The Respondents have denied the contention of the Petitioner that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle. The best witness to depose about the accident is injured himself but he is not examined on the ground that the injured has become mentally unsound/imbalanced.

Hence, the wife of the petitioner is examined as PW1, who filed her affidavit in lieu of chief examination and deposed about the details of the accident. Admittedly she is not an eyewitness. Hence, whatever she deposed in the chief examination as well as cross examination is not useful to prove the mode of accident. Hence, the Petitioner produced

PW2 who is the eyewitness. PW2 deposed that on 25/11/2007 while he was proceeding from Aziznagar to Langar House on his scooter the

Petitioner was proceeding on cycle from same direction towards

Hydershawkote and when they reached near Aremaisamma Temple one car bearing No. AP 13 E 6967 overtaking his scooter came with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the cyclist from behind at about 6.45 PM. Due to which the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The driver of the said car fled away from the place of the accident. PW2 also deposed that the accident happened due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the car. In support of his 5 contention the Petitioner has filed Ex. A1 certified copy of FIR registered by Narsingi Police in Cr. No. 325/2007, which go to show that the accident has happened due to the negligence of crime vehicle. Ex. A2 is the rough sketch of scene of offence and Ex. A5 is the charge sheet filed by Narsingi

Police. As seen from Ex. A5 the Police, Narsingi have concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., car bearing No. AP 13 E 6967, which was driven by Accused by name

Kichannagari Venkat Reddy and he is charged for the offence under section 338 of IPC. Therefore, on going through the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and also documentary evidence in the form of Exs. A1, A3 and A5 it is clear that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver. The learned Counsel for the Respondent failed to cross examine PW2 the eywtienss. Hence, it is deemed that the

Respondents are not denying the mode of accident.

11.Issue No. II: The primary question to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation from the Respondents. In order to prove the same the Petitioner got examined PWs 3 to 5, who have treated the injured to show that he has undertaken treatment in various hospitals and spent Rs. 6,50,000/-. So far as spending of Rs. 6,50,000/- towards medical expenses by the claimants are concerned, it is suggested that medical bills, discharge summary are created as the claimant was not having capacity to pay Rs. 6,50,000/-. The defence taken by the

Respondent is not on proper lines. The point to be considered in this case is not whether claimant was capable of spending Rs. 6,50,000/- for treatment or not. It is in fact whether the claimant has paid the money to the hospital. If the claimant is not having capacity, it does not mean that all the bills are created. However, if the claimant is not capable of settling 6 the bills, he must have borrowed money and paid the bills. The claimant is not expected to prove before the Court as to where from he procured money from the hospital bills. In fact between line of cross examination clearly establishes that the Petitioner claimant is not having capacity and thereby suitable compensation has to be awarded so that claimant can discharge whatever debts he had for clearing medical bills. Since the

Respondent has disputed about the bills, the petitioner is expected to prove before the Court that he has spent Rs. 6,50,000/- towards medical and hospital expenditure and other ancillary bills.

12.PW1 has deposed in the chief examination itself that she has spent

Rs. 6,50,000/- apart from he has also examined PW3 who is the Doctor K.

Satyanarayana Reddy and his evidence is to the effect that the claimant was admitted in the hospital with head injury and other injuries and the claimant was examined by team of doctors which include neuro surgeon, ortho surgeon, general surgeon and other experts. He also deposed that they found head injury, bleeding from front parietal occipital region, fracture of both bones of left leg, fracture of left clavicle, fracture of maxilla left, fracture of lower limb, fracture of left pelvis, left supra orbital laceration, multiple facial abrasion, deep laceration medial aspect of thigh, left black eye. PW3 also deposed that all the injuries were not grievous in nature and ultimately the claimant was discharged on 08/12/2007. Having gone through Ex. A3 Injury Certificate PW3 has deposed that the said injury certificate was given by him and he has identified his signature. While referring to Ex. A4 the copy of the medico legal record PW3 deposed that Ex. A4 was given by Yashoda Hospital. In respect of final bill he has deposed that Ex. C1 is the final bill which is for

Rs. 2,06,280/-. On going through number of bills under Ex. A7, PW3 7 deposed that Ex. A7 consists of some of the bills issued by Yashoda

Hospital. EX. A7 includes the amount shown in Ex. C1. This witness was cross examined at length and suggestions were given that injuries are not grievous and is not competent to speak about nature of the injuries and that the claimant was never admitted in the hospital and other connected aspect but all of them were denied and they were not serious in nature which can affect the genuineness of the documents under Ex. A1 and the injury certificate under Ex. A3.

13.In addition to the examination of PW3, the Plaintiff has also examined Dr. Sri Ravi Suman Reddy Neuro Surgeon of Yashoda Hospital as

PW4. PW4 is also one of the doctors of the team and he has also corroborated the evidence of PW3 in deposing that the Petitioner has received about 11 injuries described in Ex. A3 and he has also further deposed that they had to manage head injury conservatively and he was discharged on 08/12/2007 and advised to take treatment for long and antic convulsant therapy and on account of injuries there is a possibility of developing seizures (fits) and also possibility of loss of memory and irritations.

14.The Petitioner has also examined Dr. Anil Kumar Doctor of Yashoda

Hospital as PW5, who deposed about the injuries of the claimant and examination by him and deposed that the petitioner was treated on ventilator and all the injuries were grievous in nature. Therefore, the case sheet of the claimant is marked as Ex. C2. Therefore, basing on the evidence of PWs 3 to 5, it is clear that the claimant has received in all 11 injuries and spent Rs. 2,06,280/- under Ex. C1. As per Ex. A9 the petitioner admitted in Premier Hospital on 08/12/2007 and discharged on 02/01/2008.

8

15.On analyzing the evidence of PWs 3 to 5, this court is of the opinion that the Petitioner has sustained in all 11 injuries out of which there are five fracture injuries, one head injury, two lacerated wound, three abrasions. Hence, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- @

Rs. 25,000/- for each of the 5 fracture injuries, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for head injury, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards two lacerated injuries and finally a sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards three of the abrasions.

16.Since the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and has to suffer a lot of pain and sufferance. Hence, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded towards pain and sufferance. Further, the Petitioner needs proper extra nourishment for recovering from the injuries sustained in the accident.

The Petitioner underwent so many surgeries in various hospitals and to that extent medical record is also filed. So he might have incurred lot of money for transportation as well. Hence, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards extra nourishment and transportation.

17.According to the Petitioner he was earning an amount of Rs.

12,000/- per annum as on the date of accident. However, Ex. B1 ration card go to show that the income of the claim petition is about Rs. 12,000/- per annum which comes to Rs. 1,000/- per month. PW1 the wife of the injured as deposed that for government purpose the ration card was taken. In any case since the Petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the accident and since he was expected to go over to attend labour work for eking out his livelihood. Hence, the income o the petitioner is taken @ Rs.

150/- per day which comes to Rs. 4,500/- per month.

18.The Petitioner got admitted in the Yashoda Hospital on the date of accident i.e., 25/11/2007 and discharged on 08/12/2007. As per Ex. A9 9 the petitioner admitted in Premier Hospital on 08/12/2007 and discharged on 02/01/2008. Therefore, the Petitioner was in hospital for two months and the injuries sustained by the Petitioner were grievous in nature.

Hence, the bed ridden period of the Petitioner can be arrived as three months. The income of the injured is considered as Rs. 4,500/- per month.

Therefore, the loss of earnings for a period of three months comes to Rs.

13,500/-

19.For the purpose of computing the compensation under disability, the age required to be taken is 38 years which is the age of the injured. As per the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) in between Sarala

Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009, the appropriate multiplier for a person aged 38 years is “15”. The yearly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 54,000/- (Rs. 4,500/- x 12). A human body can be divided into 5 parts (5 x 20 = 100%) and thereby the quantum of disability of the Petitioner which is confined to left lower limb (one part out of five parts) can be arrived as 20%. As per the Disability Certificate under Ex. A6 issued by Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad the Petitioner has sustained 65% disability. Therefore, the loss of disability by applying the multiplier ‘15’ comes to Rs. 1,05,300/- (Rs. 54,000/- x 15 x 20/100 x 65%).

10

20.On considering the above facts and circumstances the petitioners are entitled for compensation as follows:

Sl. No. Description of the head Amount (Rs)

1. Grievous Injuries (Rs. 25,000/- x 5) Rs. 1,25,000/-

2. Head Injury (Rs. 25,000/- x 1)Rs. 25,000/-

3. Lacerated Injuries (Rs. 5,000/- x 2) Rs. 10,000/-

4. Abrasions (Rs. 3,000/- x 3)Rs. 9,000/-

5. Pain and sufferance Rs. 25,000/-

6. Extra nourishment and TransportationRs. 15,000/-

7. Medical expenditure Rs.5,67,814/-

8.Loss of earnings (4,500/- x 3 months)Rs. 13,500/-

9.Disability (65% of left leg)Rs. 1,05,300/- -------------- TOTAL:Rs.8,95,614/- ---------------

21.Thus, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,95,614/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Six Hundred and Fourteen

Only).

22.It is the contention of the Petitioner that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid driving license. If at all the driver of the crime vehicle is not having valid driving license, the Police, Narsingi would have registered case against the driver o the crime vehicle under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act apart from section 338 of IPC. But there is no such instance. Hence, the contention of the Respondent cannot be accepted. As seen from Ex. B2, the insurance police is in force as on the date of the accident.

23. In view of the above discussion this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents.

11

24. ISSUE No. III: In view of the above discussion at Issue Nos. I and

II, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has received injuries in the road traffic accident with crime vehicle which was insured with

Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company. Therefore, the Respondents are liable to pay compensation for the injuries sustained to the deceased at the time of the accident.

25.In the result, petition is allowed, in part, awarding compensation of

Rs. 8,95,614/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Six Hundred and

Fourteen Only) with proportionate cost awarding with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. on Rs. 8,95,614/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Six

Hundred and Fourteen Only) from the date of this petition till the date of deposit in Court. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of compensation within two months. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw amount of Rs.

3,95,614/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Six Hundred and

Fourteen Only) with accrued interest and rest of the compensation of Rs.

5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) is ordered to be deposited in any

Nationalized Bank for a period of three years. The rest of the claim of the

Petitioners is dismissed without costs.

26. The advocate fee for the petitioner is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees

One thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of October, 2015.

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

12

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Petitioner: PW1: Smt. J. Balamani

PW2: Sri A. Pradeep

PW3: Sri Dr. K. Satyanarayana Reddy

PW4: Dr. Ravi Suman Reddy

PW5: Dr. Anil Kumar

On behalf of the Respondent: -NIL-

EXHIBITS

On behalf of the Petitioner: Ex. A1: Certified copy of FIR

Ex. A2: Certified copy of rough sketch of scene of offence

Ex. A3: Injury Certificate

Ex. A4: Medico Legal Certificate

Ex. A5: Certified copy of Charge Sheet

Ex. A6: Disability Certificate

Ex. A7: Bunch of medical Bills

Ex. A8: Bunch of medical prescriptions

Ex. A9: Discharge summary issued by Premier Hospital

On behalf of the Respondent: Ex. B1: Household card of the Petitioner

Ex. B2: Copy of Insurance Policy

On behalf of the Court: Ex. C1: Final Bill Statement issued by Yashoda Hospital

Ex. C2: Case sheet of petitioner issued by Yashoda Hospital

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: D. Nagarjun, I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this the 1st day of October, 2015

M.V.O.P. No. 231 of 2007 Between:

1.Gurram Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o. G. Ganga Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Field Officer in AAP, R/o. 1-7-157/402, Kamalanagar, Kapra, R.R. Dist.

(died per LRs)

2.Smt. G. Suguna, W/o. Late Gurram Jagan Mohan Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Household, R/o. 1-7-157/402, Kamalanagar, Kapra, R.R. Dist.

3.Ms. G. Aparna, D/o. Late Gurram Jagan Mohan Reddy, Aged about 23 years, Occ: Student, R/o. 1-7-157/402, Kamalanagar, Kapra, R.R. Dist.

4.Ms. G. Sandya, D/o. Late Gurram Jagan Mohan Reddy, Aged about 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o. 1-7-157/402, Kamalanagar, Kapra, R.R. Dist.

(Claimant Nos. 2 to 4 are added as per Orders,

dt. 28/07/2011 in I.A. No. 1023/2011.)

…Petitioners AND

1.K. Naresh, S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. B-1179, NGOs Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyd – 500 070.

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited 608 and 609, 6th Floor, Block – 2, White House, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500 016.…Respondents

This Petition coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri

S. Madhusudhan Reddy, Counsel for Petitioner and Sri V.M. Krishna

Reddy, Counsel for Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 1 remained exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed U/Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1983 & Rules 475/1/B of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 r/w. section 140 (c) 2 of M.V. Act, 1988 claiming lumpsum compensation amount of Rs.

4,00,000/- for the of injuries sustained by the first Petitioner. Originally this petition is filed by the Petitioner claiming compensation of Rs.

1,50,000/-. But subsequently the first petitioner died and as per the

Orders, dt. 28/07/2011 in I.A. No. 1023/2011 the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, the legal heirs of first petitioner were impleaded. Later the Petitioner

Nos. 2 to 4 have filed I.A. No. 1216/2012 seeking enhancement of claim of compensation and same was allowed on 02/01/2013 and the claim was enhanced from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/-.

2.The facts in brief as per the record are that on 26/03/2006 the first petitioner along with one M. Manohar Reddy was proceeding on Chetak

Scooter Bearing No. AP 16 A 1721 to go to Reddy Hostel, a car bearing No.

AP 29 C 5162 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed against the scooter on which the Petitioner was travelling. On which the first petition and M. Manohar Reddy fell down and received fracture and other injuries to their legs and also to other parts of the body. The Police shifted the injured to Osmania General Hospital, wherein the Petitioner underwent operation to his fracture injury on 28/03/2006 and remained in the hospital as an inpatient until 02/04/2006. The Petitioner incurred an amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards medical and other expenditure. Due to the accident the petitioner became permanently disabled and totally confined to bed. A case in Cr. No. 82/2006 was registered for the offence under section 338 of IPC against the Driver of the said vehicle by the

Police Abid Road. The first petitioner is aged about 48 years and he was working as Field Officer in AAP Group of Services and drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 9,000/- per month. Due to the accident the petitioner could not attend to his duties and became unfit for the said job. The first 3 petitioner is the only bread earning member of his family. Besides financial loss the Petitioner has suffered from severe pain in his leg and not able to attend his person works. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle which belongs to

Respondent No. 1 and it is insured with Respondent No. 2 Insurance

Company. The Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 have submitted that the first petitioner died during the pendency of the case due to cumulative effect of the injuries sustained by him. Due to the death of the Petitioner herein the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 have been suffering from mental agony and financial loss. Therefore, the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3. The Respondent No. 2 the Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments of the petition and contended that the claim of compensation is excessive and exorbitant. After enhancing the claim from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/-, the Respondent No. 2 has filed

additional counter contending that the first claimant has not died due to

injuries sustained in the accident. There is no nexus to the death of

Claimant No. 1 and the injuries caused in the accident. Further, the claimants have not filed any document to show that the injured claimant

No. 1 died due to injuries caused in the accident. It is also argued that the

Petitioner has not filed documentary evidence for enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/-. Medical bills and reports are fabricated to get more compensation and finally prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

4. Basing on the pleadings, my predecessor in office has settled following issues for enquiry:

4

I. Whether the Petitioner sustained injuries in a Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 25/03/2006 due to rash and negligent driving of Hyundai Ac- cent Car Bearing No. AP 29 C 5162 by its driver?

II.Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and if so how much amount and from which of the Respondents?

III. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to

A10 are marked on behalf of the petitioners. On behalf of the Respondents no oral or documentary evidence is adduced but filed Ex. B1 which is copy of Insurance Policy.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. ISSUE No. I: It is contended by the Petitioner that on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle the accident has occurred, due to which he sustained injuries. The Respondents have denied the same. In order to discharge the burden, the wife of first petitioner i.e., Petitioner No. 2 is examined as PW1. She filed her affidavit in lieu of chief examination and deposed about the details of the accident but admittedly PW1 is not an eyewitness. As such, the Petitioners have examined eyewitness as PW3 to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. PW3 is the eyewitness who is none other than the colleague of the first petitioner who was travelling along with the deceased on the scooter at the time of accident.

PW3 deposed that while he along with his colleague was proceeding on 26/03/2006 on Chetak Scooter Bearing No. AP 16 A 1721 to Reddy Hostel, a car bearing No. AP 29 C 5162 came in rash and negligent manner dashed the scooter on which the Petitioner was travelling, due to which the first petitioner and M. Manohar Reddy fell down and received injuries.

5

In the cross examination it was suggested that the accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased. But the same was denied. In support of their contention the Petitioners have filed certified copy of FIR as Ex. A1, which go to show that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of driver of crime vehicle.

Therefore, on going through the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 3 and also documentary evidence in the form of Ex. A1 FIR, it can be concluded that the petitioner has sustained injuries in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 25/03/2006 due to rash and negligent driving of Hyundai Accent Car

Bearing No. AP 29 C 5162 by its driver.

8.After amending the claim petition as per the Orders, dt. 02/01/2013 in I.A. No. 1216/2012 the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 have mentioned at amended part that on account of cumulative effect of the injuries sustained, the first petition died. The Petitioners are not clear as to whether the deceased died on account of mental agony or on account of injuries received in the accident. Except simple assertion by the

Petitioners that on account of the accident only the deceased died, there is no other record or report before the Court. It is to be noted that the accident took place on 25/03/2006 and the first petitioner died on 13-10- 2007 as per Ex. A5, so there is a huge gap between the accident and date of death of the first petitioner. In order to link the death of the deceased to that of the injuries received in the accident, the dead body should have been subjected to Postmortem Examination so that the doctors concerned could have can given opinion about the cause of death. Unless

Postmortem Examination Report says that the injured died on account of injuries caused in the accident, the death cannot be connected to the injuries sustained in the accident. The Postmortem Examination is 6 relevant atleast to rule out that the cause of death is not on account of other health reasons. Therefore, not subjecting the dead body of the victim for postmortem examination goes against the case of the claimants. Merely because he met with an accident and died subsequently after 19 months, the reason for the death cannot be attributed to injuries sustained in the accident.

9.Atleast, the doctors who have treated the injured/deceased should have deposed that on account of the accident and the injuries received by the first petitioner died. No doctor is examined to prove that the first petitioner died on account of injuries sustained in the accident. On perusal of medical record, it is clear that the first petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 09/04/2006. The claimants have not filed any document to show that subsequent to accident until first petitioner died, he was suffering from injuries allegedly received by him in the road traffic accident.

10.Further, after causing death of the deceased, the petitioners have not filed any complaint before the Police to the effect that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained in the accident. No case is registered against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offence under section 304-A of IPC.

11.The driver of the crime vehicle was charged for the offence under section 338 of IPC and on account of not informing about the death of the deceased the section of law was not altered or separate criminal case is not registered against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offence under section 304-A IPC. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the contention of the claim petitioners that the death occurred on account of 7 injuries received in the road traffic accident with the crime vehicle cannot be accepted.

12.Issue No. II: According to Petitioner as on the date of accident the deceased was getting Rs. 7,000/- per month. Apart from his oral evidence he has filed Ex. A8 Salary Certificate to show that deceased was earning

Rs. 7,000/- per month and Ex. A9 to show that the deceased was absent from the duty on account of accident. The Petitioners have produced PW2 to prove that the first petitioner/deceased was working in AAP Detective

Security Services and was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month along with Rs.

100/- per day as batta as on the date of accident. This witness has admitted in the cross examination that he has not produced any document to show that the deceased first petitioner used to get Rs.

7,000/- per month by working in Detective Agency. A suggestion was given to this witness that Exs. A8 to A10 are created but the same was denied. As per Ex. A7 the first petitioner used to earn a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month, which is corroborated by the evidence of PW2. Therefore, the income of the first petitioner can be arrived as Rs. 7,000/- per month.

13.The Petitioners sought for compensation equivalent to monthly salary. Though as per Ex. A9 the first petitioner could not attend to his office from 25/03/2006 to 13-10-2007 i.e., until his death, the loss of pay cannot be estimated for 19 months. The first Petitioner got admitted in

Hospital on 25/03/2006 and discharged on 09/04/2006 as per Ex. A3.

Since the first petitioner has sustained two fracture injuries, it would be difficult for him to discharge his duties immediately after discharge.

Hence, the first petitioner needs atleast some period for bed rest.

Therefore, the bed ridden period can be estimated as 3 months.

8

Therefore, the loss of earnings can be estimated as Rs. 21,000/- i.e., @ Rs.

7,000/- per month.

14.The Petitioners have also claimed compensation equivalent to money spent for the treatment of injured/deceased. As per Ex. A6 the

Petitioners have incurred an amount of Rs. 17,415/- towards hospital and medical expenditure. The Respondent though denied the same, there is no record filed by Respondent to show that Petitioners have not spent and that the bills are created. Considering the same Petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs. 17,415/-, which was actually spent by them towards medical expenditure.

15.The Petitioners have filed medical record under Exs. A3 discharge card, Ex. A4 bun of OP cards issued by ESI, Nacharam, Ex. 6 medical bills,

Ex. A7 original X-Ray certificate etc., showing the injuries received by the deceased at the time of the accident. Therefore, the dependents of the deceased have to be compensated for the injuries caused to the deceased on account of accident. As per Ex. A3 Discharge Card, it is clear that the first petitioner has sustained two fracture injuries i.e., close fracture of both bones and transverse of fracture of patella lower pole. Therefore, considering the oral and documentary evidence, it can be concluded that the injured has sustained two fracture injuries, hence, an amount of Rs.

25,000/- is awarded to each of the two facture injuries. Since the injuries sustained by the injured\deceased are grievous the Petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and sufferance and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards extra nourishment and transportation charges.

16.On considering the above facts and circumstances the petitioners are entitled for compensation as follows:

9

Sl. No. Description of the head Amount (Rs)

1. Grievous Injuries (Rs. 25,000/- x 2) Rs. 50,000/-

2. Pain and sufferance Rs. 25,000/-

3. Extra nourishment and TransportationRs. 10,000/-

4. Medical expenditure Rs.17,415/-

5.Loss of earnings (7,000/- x 3 months)Rs. 21,000/-

TOTAL: -------------- Rs.1,23,415/- ---------------

17.Thus, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,23,415/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Fifteen

Only).

18.PW1 has admitted in his chief examination that when the criminal case in C.C. No. 82/2006 was settled in the Lok Adalath as per the Award under Ex. A2 an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was given to the claim petitioner.

Even otherwise, there is no agreement in the Policy between the owner of the crime vehicle and Respondent No. 2 that in case if the injured is compensated in any other mean Respondent No. 2 is not liable to pay compensation. Therefore, whatever may be the amount awarded in favour of the claimants herein as per the Lok Adalath Award under Ex. A2 it cannot be deducted out of the compensation liable to be paid by

Respondent No. 2 in favour of the Claimant.

19. As per Ex. B1 as on the date of accident insurance policy is in force.

Therefore, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly liable to pay the amount of compensation to the Petitioners.

20. In view of the above discussion this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents.

10

21. ISSUE No. III: While discussion Issue No. I this court has not accepted the contention of the claim petitioners that the deceased died on account of injuries caused in the road traffic accident with crime vehicle. However, this Court has also given a clear finding that the deceased has received injuries in the road traffic accident with crime vehicle which was insured with Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company.

Therefore, the Respondents are liable to pay compensation for the injuries sustained to the deceased at the time of the accident.

22.This petition is dismissed for default on 31/07/2013 and as per the

Orders, dt. 02/05/2014 in I.A. No. 1514/2013 the OP is restored to its original number. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for interest for the period from 31/07/2013 to 02/05/2014.

23.In the result, petition is allowed, in part, awarding compensation of

Rs. 1,23,415/-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Fifteen Only) with proportionate cost awarding with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. on Rs. 1,23,415/-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Three

Thousand Four Hundred and Fifteen Only) from the date of this petition to 31/07/2013 and from 02/05/2014 to till the date of deposit in Court. The

Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of compensation. The rest of the claim of the Petitioners is dismissed without costs.

24.The compensation amount of Rs. 1,23,415/-(Rupees One Lakh

Twenty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Fifteen Only) is being apportioned among the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 as follows:

S. No.DescriptionAmount (Rs)

1.Petitioner No. 2 73,415/- 11

2.Petitioner No. 3 25,000/-

3.Petitioner No. 4 25,000/-

25.On such deposit, the petitioner No. 1 is permitted to withdraw entire amount of Rs. 73,415/-(Rupees Seventy Three Thousand Four Hundred and Fifteen Only). The Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to withdraw entire compensation amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

Thousand Only) each with accrued interest.

26.The advocate fee for the petitioner is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees

One thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of October, 2015.

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Petitioner: PW1: Smt. Gurram Suguna PW2: Sri J. Tumpally Srinivas Reddy PW3: Sri Maddirala Manohar Reddy

On behalf of the Respondent: -NIL-

EXHIBITS

On behalf of the Petitioner: Ex. A1: Certified copy of FIR in Cr. No. 82/2006 of Abid Road PS

Ex. A2: Certified copy of Award passed by Lok Adalath

Ex. A3: Original Discharge Card

Ex. A4: Bunch of OP cards issued by ESI, Nacharam

Ex. A5: Original Death Certificate of first petitioner

Ex. A6: Medical bills

Ex. A7: Original X-Ray

Ex. A8: Salary Certificate of first petitioner

Ex. A9: Absent Certificate of first petitioner

Ex. A10: Work Order 12

On behalf of the Respondent: Ex. B1: Copy of Insurance Policy

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: D. Nagarjun, I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this the 1st day of October, 2015

M.V.O.P. No. 230 of 2007 Between:

Maddirala Manohar Reddy, S/o. Late M. Narayan Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Field Officer in AAP, R/o. 16-11-1/5/8/C, Saleemnagar Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad.…Petitioner AND

1.K. Naresh, S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. B-1179, NGOs Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyd – 500 070.

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited 608 and 609, 6th Floor, Block – 2, White House, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500 016.…Respondents

This Petition coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S. Madhusudhan Reddy, Counsel for Petitioner and Sri V.M. Krishna Reddy, Counsel for Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 1 remained exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed U/Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1983 &

Rules 475/1/B of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 r/w. section 140 (c) of M.V. Act, 1988 claiming lumpsum compensation amount of Rs.

4,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by the first Petitioner.

Originally this petition is filed by the Petitioner claiming compensation of

Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Petitioner has filed I.A. No. 1858/2014 seeking enhancement of claim of compensation and the same was allowed on 31/03/2015 and the claim was enhanced from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs.

4,00,000/-.

2

2.The facts in brief as per the record are that on 26/03/2006 the petitioner along with one Jagan Mohan Reddy was proceeding on Chetak

Scooter Bearing No. AP 16 A 1721 to go to Reddy Hostel, one car bearing

No. AP 29 C 5162 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed against the scooter on which the Petitioner was travelling. On which the petitioner and Jagan Mohan Reddy fell down and received fracture and other injuries to their legs and also to other parts of the body. The Police shifted the injured to Osmania General Hospital and from there to Susrutha Hospital, Malakpet wherein the Petitioner underwent operation to his fracture injury on 28/03/2006 and remained in the hospital as an inpatient until 02/04/2006. The Petitioner incurred an amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards medical and other expenditure. Due to the accident the petitioner became permanently disabled and totally confined to bed. A case in Cr. No. 82/2006 was registered for the offence under section 338 of IPC against the Driver of the said vehicle by the

Police Abid Road. The petitioner is aged about 48 years and he was working as Field Officer in AAP Group of Services and drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 9,000/- per month. Due to the accident the petitioner could not attend to his duties and became unfit for the said job. The first petitioner is the only bread earning member of his family. Besides financial loss the Petitioner has suffered from severe pain in his leg and not able to attend his personal works. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle which belongs to

Respondent No. 1 and it is insured with Respondent No. 2 Insurance

Company. The Petitioner has suffered from mental agony and financial loss. Therefore, the Petitioner claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3

3. The Respondent No. 2 the Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments of the petition and contended that the claim of compensation is excessive and exorbitant. After enhancing the claim from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/-, the Respondent No. 2 has filed

additional counter contending that the Petitioner has not filed

documentary evidence for enhancing the compensation from Rs.

1,50,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/-. Medical bills and reports are fabricated to get more compensation and finally prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

4. Basing on the pleadings, my predecessor in office has settled following issues for enquiry:

I. Whether the Petitioner sustained injuries in a Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 25/03/2006 due to rash and negligent driving of Hyundai Ac- cent Car Bearing No. AP 29 C 5162 by its driver?

II.Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and if so how much amount and from which of the Respondents?

III. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A6 are marked on behalf of the petitioners. On behalf of the

Respondents no oral or documentary evidence is adduced but filed Ex.

B1 which is copy of Insurance Policy. The Disability Certificate of the

Petitioner is marked as Ex. X1.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. ISSUE No. I: It is contended by the Petitioner that on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle the accident has 4 occurred, due to which he sustained injuries. The Respondents have denied the same. In order to discharge the burden the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and filed affidavit in lieu of his chief examination narrating the details of the accident. It is mentioned in the affidavit that while he along with his colleague were proceeding on 26/03/2006 on a Chetak Scooter Bearing No. AP 16 A 1721 to Reddy

Hostel, a car bearing No. AP 29 C 5162 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter on which the Petitioner was travelling.

Due to which he along with his colleague fell down and received injuries.

In support of his contention the Petitioner has filed certified copy of FIR as Ex. A1, which go to show that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of driver of crime vehicle. It is clear from the FIR that since the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver, the Police, Abid Road has registered a case in Cr. No.

82/2006 for the offence under section 338 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle. Therefore, on going through the oral evidence of PW1 and also documentary evidence in the form of Ex. A1 FIR, it can be concluded that the petitioner has sustained injuries in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 25/03/2006 due to rash and negligent driving of Hyundai

Accent Car Bearing No. AP 29 C 5162 by its driver.

8.Issue No. II: According to Petitioner as on the date of accident he was getting Rs. 9,000/- per month. Apart from his oral evidence he has filed Ex. A5 Salary Certificate to show that he was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month and Ex. A6 to show that he was absent from the duty on account of accident. In order to prove the income of the petitioner, PW2 is produced by the petitioner to prove that the petitioner. He has deposed that the petitioner was working in AAP Detective Security Services and 5 was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month and was also getting Rs. 100/- per day as batta as on the date of accident. This witness has not produced any document to show that the petitioner used to get Rs. 9,000/- per month by working in Detective Agency. A suggestion was given to this witness that Exs. A5 and A6 are created but the same was denied. As per

Ex. A5 the petitioner used to earn a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month, which is corroborated by the evidence of PW2. Therefore, the income of the first petitioner can be arrived as Rs. 9,000/- per month.

9.The Petitioner sought for compensation equivalent to his monthly salary towards loss of earnings. Though as per Ex. A6 the petitioner could not attend to his office from 25/03/2006 to 04/12/2006, the loss of pay cannot be estimated for 9 months. The Petitioner got admitted in

Hospital on 25/03/2006 and discharged on 02/04/2006 as per Ex. A3.

Since the petitioner has sustained two fracture injuries, it would be difficult for him to discharge his duties immediately after discharge.

Hence, the petitioner needs atleast some period for bed rest. Therefore, the bed ridden period can be estimated as 3 months. Therefore, the loss of earnings can be estimated as Rs. 27,000/- i.e., @ Rs. 9,000/- per month.

10.The Petitioner has also claimed compensation equivalent to money spent for his treatment. As per Ex. A4 the Petitioner has incurred an amount of Rs. 13,018/- towards hospital and medical expenditure. The

Respondent though denied the same, there is no record filed by

Respondent to show that Petitioner has not spent and that the bills are created. Considering the same Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.

13,018/-, which was actually spent by him towards medical expenditure.

6

11.PW3 is the Doctor who has issued Ex. X1 Disability Certificate with regard to the disability sustained by the Petitioner. He deposed that on 17/06/2014 a person by name M. Manohar Reddy came to his hospital and on clinical examination he found that the petitioner was having a malunited fracture both bones left leg with the restriction of ankle movements and malunited inter condyler fracture left tibia with painful knee movement terminal 30 degrees restricted. He also deposed that he has gone through the medical record issued by Susrutha Hospital,

Malakpet in the years 2006 and on verifying the X-Ray he assessed the physical disability at 20% and issued physically handicapped certificate,

dt. 19/06/2014 under Ex. X1. He also deposed that the Petitioner has got

difficulty in sitting and squatting and the injuries sustained by the

Petitioner were grievous in nature.

12.For the purpose of computing the compensation under disability, the age required to be taken is 48 years which is the age of the injured.

As per the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) in between

Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009, the appropriate multiplier for a person aged 48 years is “13”. The yearly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,08,000/- (Rs. 9,000/- x 12). A human body can be divided into 5 parts (5 x 20 = 100%) and thereby the quantum of disability of the Petitioner which is confined to left lower limb (one part out of five parts) can be arrived as 20%. As per the

Disability Certificate under Ex. X1 the Petitioner has sustained 20% disability. Therefore, the loss of disability by applying the multiplier ‘13’ comes to Rs. 56,680/- (Rs. 1,09,000/- x 13 x 20/100 x 20%).

7

13.The Petitioners have filed medical record under Exs. A3 discharge card, Ex. A4 bunch of medical bills etc., showing the injuries received by the deceased at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Petitioner has to be compensated for the injuries caused to him on account of accident.

On perusal of Ex. A3 Discharge Card, it is clear that the petitioner has sustained two fracture injuries i.e., fracture of upper end of tibia and fracture of both bone joint middle and lower 3rd. Therefore, considering the documentary evidence under Ex. A3, it can be concluded that the injured has sustained two fracture injuries, hence, an amount of Rs.

25,000/- is awarded to each of the facture injuries.

14.Further, since the injuries sustained by the injured are grievous in nature, the Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and sufferance and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards extra nourishment and transportation.

15.On considering the above facts and circumstances the petitioners are entitled for compensation as follows:

Sl. No. Description of the head Amount (Rs)

1. Grievous Injuries (Rs. 25,000/- x 2)Rs. 50,000/-

2. Pain and sufferance Rs. 25,000/-

3. Extra nourishment and TransportationRs. 10,000/-

4. Medical expenditure Rs.13,018/-

5.Loss of earnings (9,000/- x 3 months)Rs. 27,000/-

6.Disability (20% of left leg)Rs. 56,680/- -------------- TOTAL:Rs.1,81,698/- --------------- __________________________________________________________ 8

16.Thus, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,81,698/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty One Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Eight

Only).

17.PW1 has admitted in his chief examination that when the criminal case in C.C. No. 82/2006 was settled in the Lok Adalath as per the Award under Ex. A2 an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was given to the claim petitioner. Even otherwise, there is no agreement in the Policy between the owner of the crime vehicle and Respondent No. 2 that in case if the injured is compensated in any other mean Respondent No. 2 is not liable to pay compensation. Therefore, whatever may be the amount awarded in favour of the claimants herein as per the Lok Adalath Award under Ex.

A2 it cannot be deducted out of the compensation liable to be paid by

Respondent No. 2 in favour of the Claimant.

18. As per Ex. B1 as on the date of accident insurance policy is in force.

Therefore, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly liable to pay the amount of compensation to the Petitioners.

19. In view of the above discussion this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents.

20. ISSUE No. III: In view of the above discussion at Issue Nos. I and II, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has received injuries in the road traffic accident with crime vehicle which was insured with

Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company. Therefore, the Respondents are liable to pay compensation for the injuries sustained to the deceased at the time of the accident.

9

21.In the result, petition is allowed, in part, awarding compensation of

Rs. 1,81,698/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty One Thousand Six Hundred and

Ninety Eight Only) with proportionate cost awarding with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. on Rs. 1,81,698/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty One Thousand

Six Hundred and Ninety Eight Only) from the date of this petition till the date of deposit in Court. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire amount of Rs. 1,81,698/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty One 10

Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Eight Only) with accrued interest. The

Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of compensation. The rest of the claim of the Petitioners is dismissed without costs.

22. The advocate fee for the petitioner is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees

One thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of October, 2015.

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Petitioner: PW1: Sri Maddirala Manohar Reddy PW2: Sri J. Tumpally Srinivas Reddy envy PW3: Sri Dr. S. Vasudeva Rao

On behalf of the Respondent: -NIL-

EXHIBITS

On behalf of the Petitioner: Ex. A1: Certified copy of FIR in Cr. No. 82/2006 of Abid Road PS Ex. A2: Certified copy of Award passed by Lok Adalath Ex. A3: Original Discharge Card issued by Susrutha Hospital, Malakpet Ex. A4: Bunch of Medical Bills Ex. A5: Salary Certificate of first petitioner Ex. A6: Absent Certificate of first petitioner

On behalf of the Respondent: Ex. B1: Copy of Insurance Policy

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: D. Nagarjun, I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this the 1st day of October, 2015

M.V.O.P. No. 145 of 2007 Between:

K. Srinu, S/o. Venkataiah, Aged 29 years, Occ: Iron Shop, R/o. Stalin Nagar, Serilingampally (M), Miyapur, R.R. District. … Petitioner AND

1.Mr. Nizamuddin, S/o. Nabi Patel, Aged: Major, Occ: Owner of vehicle, R/o. 14-3-4, Goshal Mahal, Hyderabad.

2.M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Begum Bazar Branch, 5-5-677/678/101, 1st Floor, Sana Plaza, Opp: Police Lines, Gosha Mahal, Hyd – 500012. …Respondents (Policy No. 551703/31/05/670009489 valid from 27/05/2005 to 26/05/2006)

This Petition coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y.

Srinivasa Chary, Counsel for Petitioner and Sri b. Somaiah, Counsel for Re- spondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 1 remained exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed U/Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicle Act and under

Rules 475/1B of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules r/w. section 163-A, 140 (c) of M.V. Act claiming lumpsum compensation amount of Rs.

6,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by the Petitioner. Originally this petition was dismissed for default on 18/10/2010 and as per the orders, dt. 01/05/2013 in I.A. No. 2216/2012 the petition is restored to its original number.

2

2.The facts in brief as can be gathered from the record goes to show that on 19/08/2005 while the petitioner along with his wife were returning from Miyapur after purchasing doors at Miyapur X Roads at about 4.00 PM a lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 6028 came in rash and negligent manner dashed the Petitioner, due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and his back bone was completely broken. The petitioner was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. A case in Cr. No.

219/2005 was registered for the offence under section 337 of IPC by

Miyapur Police against the driver of the lorry. The Petitioner spent huge amounts towards treatment and medicines and he is still undergoing treatment. Due to damage of the back bone the Petitioner has sustained permanently disable. Prior to the accident the Petitioner was hale and healthy and used to earn a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month by doing laundry business. The Petitioners submits that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle which belongs to

Respondent No. 1 and it is insured with Respondent No. 2 Insurance

Company. Therefore, the Petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.

6,00,000/- from the Respondents.

3.The Respondent No. 1 owner of the crime vehicle remained exparte.

4. The Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments of the petition and contended that the alleged accident has taken place due to contributory negligence of the Petitioner and the treatment was taken by the Petitioner in Government Hospital and as such the Respondent No. 2 is not liable to pay the compensation amount.

It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled for interest from the date of dismissal of the petition for default until it was restored. It is also 3 contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving license and finally prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

5.The Respondent No. 2 has filed petition under section 170 of Motor

Vehicle Act seeking permission to take all possible defences which the owner of the crime vehicle was expected to take. The said petition was allowed and thereby Respondent No. 2 has taken all the defences.

6. Basing on the pleadings, my predecessor in office has settled the following issues for trial:

I. Whether the Petitioner sustained injuries in a Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 19/08/2005 due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing

No. AP 12 T 6028 by its driver?

II.Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and if so how much amount and from which of the Respondents?

III. To what relief?

7. During the course of trial, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A14 are marked on behalf of the petitioners. On behalf of the

Respondents no oral evidence is adduced except Ex. B1, which is copy of insurance policy.

8.Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. ISSUE No. I: It is contended by the Petitioner that on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle the accident has occurred, due to which he sustained injuries. The Respondents have denied the contention of the Petitioner that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle. The best witness to depose about the accident is injured himself, who is examined as PW1.

He deposed that on 19/08/2005 while he along with his wife were 4 returning from Miyapur after purchasing doors at Miyapur X Roads at about 4.00 PM a lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 6028 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed him, due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and his back bone was completely fractured. The petitioner was shifted to Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad. In the cross examination it was suggested that PW1 was going in the middle of the road at the time of the accident but the same was denied. In support of his contention the Petitioner has filed Ex. A1 certified copy of FIR registered by Miyapur Police in Cr. No. 219/2005, which go to show that the accident has happened due to the negligence of crime vehicle. Ex. A2 is the charge sheet filed by Miyapur Police, which go to show that the Police, Miaypur have concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 6078, which was driven by Accused by name Shaik

Nizamuddin and he is charged for the offence under section 338 of IPC.

Exs. A3 and A4 are the statements of the witnesses in Cr. No. 219/2005 and Ex. A5 is the Panchanama prepared by Police, Miyapur. Therefore, on going through the oral evidence of PW1 and also documentary evidence in the form of Exs. A1 to A5 it is clear that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver. The learned

Counsel for the Respondent though cross examined PW1, nothing was elicited to disprove the contention of the Petitioner. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.

10.Issue No. II: The primary question to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation from the Respondents. According to the Petitioner he spent lot of money for taking treatment. Para No. 2 of chief affidavit of PW1 go to show that he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, 5

Secunderabad and a case was registered against the Accused and that he was given treatment in the hospital. It was suggested that the treatment in the Gandhi Hospital is free of ocsts and Petitioner has not spent any money but the same were denied. As per the discharge summary there was one fracture. The Petitioner has filed number of documents to show that he has taken treatment subsequently at Remedy Hospital, Kukatpally.

Ex. A14 are the bunch of medical bills to show that the Petitioner has spent an amount of Rs. 19,018/-. He has also filed number of prescriptions under Ex. A13 and also Exs. A11 and A12 to show that he has taken treatment in Yashoda Hospital and Remedy Hospital respectively. Ex. A10 is the discharge summary issued by Gandhi

Hospital, which go to show that the Petitioner was admitted on 15/04/2006 and he was operated on 22/04/2006 and he was discharged on 27/04/2006.

11.Therefore, as per the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex. A6, it can be concluded that the Petitioner has sustained one fracture injury to backbone. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards fracture injury. Since the Petitioner has sustained fracture injury, he might have suffered lot of pain and sufferance. Hence, an amount of

Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards pain and sufferance. Further, the

Petitioner needs proper extra nourishment for recovering from the injuries sustained in the accident. The Petitioner underwent so many surgeries in various hospitals and to that extent medical record is also filed. So he might have incurred lot of money for transportation as well. Hence, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards extra nourishment and transportation.

12.According to the Petitioner he was earning an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per annum as on the date of accident. But there is n documentary 6 evidence placed by the Petitioner to show that he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month by doing laundry business. However, since the Petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he is expected to earn atleast

Rs. 150/- per day by doing labour work for eking out his livelihood.

Hence, the income o the petitioner is taken @ Rs. 150/- per day which comes to Rs. 4,500/- per month.

13.The Petitioner got admitted in the Gandhi Hospital on the date of accident i.e., 19/08/2005 and discharged on 19/09/2005. Therefore, the

Petitioner was in hospital for one month and the injury sustained by the

Petitioner was grievous in nature. Hence, the bed ridden period of the

Petitioner can be arrived as two months. The income of the injured is considered as Rs. 4,500/- per month. Therefore, the loss of earnings for a period of three months comes to Rs. 9,000/-

14.In order to prove the same the Petitioner got examined PW2 who is the orthopeadic surgeon in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. PW2 is the person who has issued disability certificate to the Petitioner. He deposed that the Petitioner approiached him on 17/03/2006 for Physical disability certificate issued by Medical Board, which go to show that the Petitioner has sustained 40% disability. He deposed that the Petitioner cannot do heavy work, cannot sit on the floor and cannot walk without support.

15.For the purpose of computing the compensation under disability, the age required to be taken is 32 years which is the age of the injured. As per the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) in between Sarala

Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009, the appropriate multiplier for a person aged 32 years is “16”. The yearly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 54,000/- (Rs. 4,500/- x 12). The disability 7 sustained by the Petitioner is only confined to backbone. A human body can be divided into 5 parts (5 x 20 = 100%) and thereby the quantum of disability of the Petitioner which is confined to backbone (one part out of five parts) can be arrived as 20%. As per the Disability Certificate under

Ex. A8 issued by Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad the Petitioner has sustained 40% disability. Therefore, the loss of disability by applying the multiplier ‘16’ comes to Rs. 69,120/- (Rs. 54,000/- x 16 x 20/100 x 40%).

16.On considering the above facts and circumstances the petitioners are entitled for compensation as follows:

Sl. No. Description of the head Amount (Rs)

1. Grievous Injury (Rs. 25,000/- x 1)Rs. 25,000/-

2. Pain and sufferance Rs. 15,000/-

6. Extra nourishment and TransportationRs. 15,000/-

7. Medical expenditure Rs. 19,018/-

8.Loss of earnings (4,500/- x 3 months)Rs. 9,000/-

9.Disability (40% of backbone)Rs. 69,120/- -------------- TOTAL:Rs.1,52,138/- ---------------

17.Thus, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,52,138/- (Rupees One Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Eight

Only).

18.It is the contention of the Petitioner that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid driving license. If at all the driver of the crime vehicle is not having valid driving license, the Police, Miyapur would have registered case against the driver o the crime vehicle under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act apart from section 338 of IPC. But there is no such instance. Hence, the contention of the Respondent cannot be 8 accepted. As seen from Ex. B1, the insurance police is in force as on the date of the accident.

19. In view of the above discussion this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents.

20. ISSUE No. III: In view of the above discussion at Issue Nos. I and

II, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has received injuries in the road traffic accident with crime vehicle which was insured with

Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company. Therefore, the Respondents are liable to pay compensation for the injuries sustained to the deceased at the time of the accident.

21.In the result, petition is allowed, in part, awarding compensation of

Rs. 1,52,138/-(Rupees One Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand One Hundred and

Thirty Eight Only) with proportionate cost awarding with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. on Rs. 1,52,138/-(Rupees One Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand

One Hundred and Thirty Eight Only) from the date of this petition to till the date of deposit in Court. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of compensation within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire amount of Rs. 1,52,138/-(Rupees One Lakhs Fifty Two

Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Eight Only) with accrued interest. The rest of the claim of the Petitioners is dismissed without costs.

22. The advocate fee for the petitioner is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees

One thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of October, 2015.

9

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Petitioner: PW1: Sri K. Srinu

PW2: Sri Dr. G. Ramesh

On behalf of the Respondent: -NIL-

EXHIBITS

On behalf of the Petitioner: Ex. A1: Certified copy of FIR in Cr. No. 219/2005 Ex. A2: Certified copy of charge sheet in Cr. No. 219/2005 Ex. A3: Certified copy of statement of witness in Cr. No. 219/2005 Ex. A4: Certified copy of statement of witness in Cr. No. 219/2005 Ex. A5: Certified copy of Panchanama in Cr. No. 219/2005 Ex. A6: MLC Ex. A7: Discharge Summary issued by Gandhi Hospital, Ex. A8: Disability Certificate issued by Gandhi Hospital, Ex. A9: Certified copy of Accident Register Ex. A10: Discharge Summary Ex. A11: OP card of Yashoda Hospital Ex. A12: OP card of Remedy Hospital Ex. A13: Bunch of Medical Prescriptions Ex. A14: Bunch of medical bills

On behalf of the Respondent: Ex. B1: Copy of Insurance Policy

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

R.R.DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR

Present: Sri D. Nagarjun, I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this the 1st day of October, 2015

A. S. No. 77 of 2013 Between:

M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Limited, Having its Registered and Corporate Office at 5-10-195, Fateh Maidan Road, Opp: Police Control Room, Hyderabad – 4, having among other Branches, a Branch at Vanasthalipuram, R.R. District Rep. by its

Principal Officer and General Manager

Sri A. Suryanarayana Raju, S/o. Late A. Bangar Raju, Aged 59 years, R/o. Flat No. 409, Gayathri Towers, Street No. 1, Tarnaka, Secunderabad – 500 017.… Appellant

AND

1.Mr. P. Naveen Varma, S/o. P. Ramesh, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Proprietor of Vinayaka Fashions, H. No. 15-8-572/G, 2nd Late, Siddamber Bazar, Hyderabad, R/o. H. No. 15-5-698 to 701, Ashok Nagar, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad.

2.Mr. Parasram Tiwari, S/o. Motilal Tiwari, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Proprietor of M/s. Balaji Market Bulletin, No. 5-2-389/1, Risala Abdullah, New Osmangunj, Hyderabad.

3.Mr. Sugan Chand Pandiya, S/o. Narayanlal Pandiya, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Proprietor of M/s. Naresh Traders, H. No. 15-8-251, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, R/o. H. No. 15-1-303, Feelkhana, Hyderabad

4.Mr. B. Manohar, S/o. B. Ramdash, Aged bout 46 years, Occ: Proprietor of M/s. Bindu Dresses, H. No. 1-9-653/B, Vidya Nagar, Hyderabad, R/o.H. No. 3-16-108/4/36, Kamakshipuram, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

5.Mr. M. Babu Chary @ Brahmachary, S/o. M. Jangaiah Chary, M/s. M. Babuchary Jewellery Work Shop, H. No. 15-8-597, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad, R/o. H. No. 14-4-229, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.

… Respondents 2

Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.12.2012 passed by Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar in O.S. No. 82 of 2010

Between:

M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Limited, Having its Registered and Corporate Office at 5-10-195, Fateh Maidan Road, Opp: Police Control Room, Hyderabad – 4, having among other Branches, a Branch at Vanasthalipuram, R.R. District Rep. by its

Principal Officer and General Manager

Sri A. Suryanarayana Raju, S/o. Late A. Bangar Raju, Aged 59 years, R/o. Flat No. 409, Gayathri Towers, Street No. 1, Tarnaka, Secunderabad – 500 017.… Plaintif

AND

1.Mr. P. Naveen Varma, S/o. P. Ramesh, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Proprietor of Vinayaka Fashions, H. No. 15-8-572/G, 2nd Late, Siddamber Bazar, Hyderabad, R/o. H. No. 15-5-698 to 701, Ashok Nagar, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad.

2.Mr. Parasram Tiwari, S/o. Motilal Tiwari, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Proprietor of M/s. Balaji Market Bulletin, No. 5-2-389/1, Risala Abdullah, New Osmangunj, Hyderabad.

3.Mr. Sugan Chand Pandiya, S/o. Narayanlal Pandiya, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Proprietor of M/s. Naresh Traders, H. No. 15-8-251, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, R/o. H. No. 15-1-303, Feelkhana, Hyderabad

4.Mr. B. Manohar, S/o. B. Ramdash, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Proprietor of M/s. Bindu Dresses, H. No. 1-9-653/B, Vidya Nagar, Hyderabad, R/o.H. No. 3-16-108/4/36, Kamakshipuram, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

5.Mr. M. Babu Chary @ Brahmachary, S/o. M. Jangaiah Chary, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Proprietor of M/s. M. Babuchary Jewellery Work Shop, H. No. 15-8-597, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad, R/o. H. No. 14-4-229, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. … Defendants 3

This Appeal coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Srinivas, Counsel for the Appellant and Sri P.

Sunil, Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and Respondent

No. 1 and upon perusal of the material papers, on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

This Appeal is preferred by the Plaintif in O.S. No. 82 of 2010 on the file of Junior Civil Court, R.R. District at Hayathnagar aggrieved by the disallowing of costs in Judgment and Decree dated: 31.12.2012, wherein, the trial court has decreed the suit in favour of Plaintif.

2.For the sake of convenience during the course of following discussion, the parties as arrayed in the Trial Court are being referred to, thereby whenever Plaintif is referred to it is the Appellant of this Appeal and similarly whenever Defendant is referred it is the Respondent herein.

3. The facts as seen from the records are that the Plaintif being Chit

Fund Company has been carrying on the business of chit fund. Defendant

No. 1 has jointed chit for Rs. 5 lakhs bearing No. LT010TVM-11 agreeing to subscribe Rs. 10,000/- per month for a period of 50 months and executed all relevant documents. On 23/10/2005 Defendant No. 1 has become successful bidder and agreed to forego Rs. 2 lakhs out of prize amount of

Rs. 5 lakhs. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 stood as guarantors and signed on the guarantee Agreement on 06/11/2005. Defendant No. 1 was paid an amount of Rs. 2,93,110/- by executing all the relevant documents including pronote. The Defendant No. 1 has to pay installments as usual.

Further, inspite of many demands the Defendants have failed to pay the said amount. The Defendant No. 1 fell due of Rs. 50,000/- and inspite of giving legal notice, dt. 20/10/2009 there was no response. Therefore, suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 92,685/-.

4

4.The Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were absent and set exparte and whereas Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 5 have filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint stating that the Plaintif Company has not filed all the copies of the documents in accordance to law.

5.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

i.Whether the Plaintif company is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for?

ii.If so what relief?

6.During the course of Trial Plaintif examined its representative as

PW1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A16, whereas on behalf of Defendants, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

7PW1 has reiterated the contention of Plaintif Company about

Defendant No. 1 joining chit for Rs. 5 lakhs, becoming successful bidder, receiving amount of Rs. 2,93,110/- and failing to pay the balance of installments etc. The documents filed by the Plaintifs in the form of Ex.

A7 go to show that Defendant No. 1 has executed a chit agreement and also pronote, dt. 06/11/2005 under Ex. A9 and receiving money under Ex.

A10 cash voucher. The office copy of legal notice under Ex. A11 shows that Plaintif Company has demanded the Defendants. Ex. A8 is the

Guarantee Agreement making Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 liable for the payment of default money which was borrowed by Defendant No. 1.

Considering the oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that Defendant

Nos. 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay suit amount. The Trial

Court record further speaks that the Counsel for the Defendants have filed a memo agreeing to pay suit claim with installments @ Rs. 2,000/- to Rs.

2,500/- per month. Further, the Trial Court having taken into consideration of the facts has decreed the suit with a direction to pay the suit claim 5 under installments @ Rs. 5,000/- per month. However, the Trial Court has decreed the suit without costs.

8.Aggrieved by the finding of the Trial Court in not awarding the costs, the Plaintif has preferred this Appeal on the ground that the Trial Court has not issued any reason for not allowing costs, failed to appreciate the fact that the Defendants have admitted suit claim.

9.No additional document is filed and no oral evidence is adduced in this Appeal in addition to the evidence already available on record.

10.Heard both sides and perused the record.

11.Now, the point for determination is whether Judgment and Decree,

dt. 30-12-2012 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B. Nagar in O.S. No. 445 of 2011 is liable to be set aside to the extent of not allowing suit costs?

12.POINT: As seen from the material before the Court, it is clear that the Plaintif by way of filing Ex. A1 to A16 and on the basis of evidence of

PW1 has made out a case that the Defendants have to pay suit claim. In addition to that the contesting Defendants themselves filed a memo admitting suit claim and sought for payment of suit amount in installments. In the Memo the Defendants did not pray the Court to disallow the costs. In a suit for recovery of money whenever suit is decreed absolutely and when there is no dispute with regard to the costs, certainly suits costs have to be awarded to the Plaintif. This is because

Plaintif must have paid lot of money towards court fee and also towards advocate fee etc. when the Plaintif is not at fault and that when the

Defendants have driven the Plaintif to approach the Court by paying court fee and advocate fee, the Plaintif shall be suitably compensated for the costs incurred by him in filing the suit. In case if the plaintif is not entitled 6 for costs on the ground that the Plaintif also contributed for driving himself to approach the Court, in such circumstances the Plaintif can be denied awarding of costs. However, there shall be a clear finding by the

Trial Court to that extent.

13.On going through the Judgment of the Trial Court, it is found that no reasons are explained as to why costs are denied to Plaintif. Therefore, the Plaintif is entitled for awarding of costs. Therefore, the Judgment and

Decree of the Trial Court shall be interfered to the extent of awarding of costs to the Plaintif only and rest of the Judgment and Decree stands good.

14. In the result, this Appeal Suit is allowed by setting aside the

Judgment and Decree dated 31.12.2012 passed by Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar in O.S. No. 82 of 2010 only to

the extent of disallowing costs. Hence, the Appellant/Plaintif is entitled for suits costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 1st day of October, 2015.

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT