Smt. G.Bhavani Chandra

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT : G. Bhavani Chandra

II Addl.District Judge.

Monday the 22nd day of April, 2024

O.S.No.283 of 2013

Between :

Dr. P. Dhana Lakshmi W/o. Dr. P. Rama Krishna Murthy, Aged about 58yrs, R/o.Flat no. 402, H.no. 17-1-383/3, DamodaramResidency,Saidabad, Hyderabad. Presently residing at H.no.8- 8-314, Plot no. A/242, Greenpark Colony, Karmanghat, Hyderabad. ….Plaintiff

AND

1. P. Jyostna Kulkarni W/o. Sudhakar Rao, Aged about 43yrs, Occ: Business, R/ o. Plot No. 130, Rock Town, Mansurabad, L. B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Presently residint at Flat no. 303, Thota Ace Arcade,Venkateshwaracolony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad.

2. Bommareddy Sudhakar Reddy S/o. B.Pana Reddy, Aged about 43yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.H.no.7-1-618/EV/209, Flat no. 209, Everest Block, Aditya Enclave, Ameerpet, Hyderabad – 38.

Defendant no.2 impleaded as per Order no. IA no. 2279 of 2013 dt. 27.01.2014.

…...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on

22.02.2024 in the presence of M/s. D.Vijender Rao, counsel

for Plaintiff and defendant no.1 remained exparte, M/s. Y.

Sudershan Reddy, Counsel for Defendant no.2 and upon

hearing both sides, perusal of the material on record and

having stood over the matter for consideration till this day,

this court passed the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dt.26.12.2012 in default the court to execute the registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property and to direct the defendants no.1 and 2

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.2 of 17 to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards damages for pain and suffering and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant no.1 is the absolute owner of the House bearing NO. 8-8-314, on plot no.

A/242, n Sy.nos. 250 to 260 and 263 t 304, admeasuring 300sq.yds, consisting of Ground and First Floors with total plinth area of 1200sft with R roof situated at Ward no. 8, Block No. 8, Green park colony,

Karmanghat, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred as suit schedule property) having purchased under registered sale deed dt. 22.01.2010, demolished the entire structure and constructed ground floor and first floor with total constructed area of 3000sq.yds the defendant approached the plaintiff through Kaleshwar

Reddy and other to sell the schedule property for consideration of

Rs.90,00,000/- for which the plaintiff agreed on 26.12.2012, the defendant entered into an agreement of sale for the said amount, received Rs. 20,00,000/- and executed agreement of sale on that day acknowledging the said amount. The balance sale consideration is

Rs.70,00,000/- to be paid within three months from the date of agreement i.e., on 25.03.2013 or at the time of registration which ever is earlier. In the first week of January 2013, the defendant approached the plaintiff stating that she urgently requires Rs.20,00,000/- on that she paid on 09.01.2013 for which she passed a receipt.

Once again the defendant approached the plaintiff in the first week of February 2013 and requested to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- but by that time the plaintiff already paid Rs. 40,00,000/- and ready to pay entire balance sale consideration and asked the defendant to execute registered sale deed or in the alternate subject to delivery of possession for which the defendants agreed. On that plaintiff paid Rs. 5,00,000/- on 11.01.2013

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.3 of 17 receiving the same, the defendant delivered possession and however asked the plaintiff to prepare the document of sale deed and she will execute the registered sale deed on 12.02.2013. In pursuance of same, the plaintiff also paid Stamp Duty of Rs. 2,58,650/- on 11.01.2013 made ready the document and ready with balance consideration of

Rs.45,00,000/-. But the defendant failed to come to registration office, thereafter the plaintiff demanded the Defendant persistently to execute the registered sale deed, but he was avoiding.

Vexed with the attitude of the defendant she issued legal notice intimating the date of registration, the said notice was received by the defendant on 27.02.2013. The defendant informed the plaintiff to come to registration office on 06.03.2013, thereby she withdrew

Rs.45,00,000/- from the bank, but the defendant failed to produce original title deeds and register the property, thereby she was constrained to deposit back into the bank. She suffered mental agony and thereby claiming damages of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The plaintiff is ready to deposit balance sale consideration. The photographs, property tax receipts etc., clearly show her possession.

On 13.07.2013, the defendant no.2 along with husband of defendant no.1 came to the suit schedule property and threatened the plaintiff to vacate and handover the possession stating that he has purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed. He furnished the copy of sale deed on 05.01.2013, thereby she came to know that with malafide intention it was created. The defendant no.2 is not a bonafide purchaser, but it is created, it was executed during the pendency of sale agreement, thereby he is liable to join as co vendor along with the defendant no.1, subsequently plaintiff came to know that the defendant and her husband obtained loan from Kotak Mahendra

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.4 of 17

Bank for Rs. 46,05,50,000/- by depositing the original title deeds and committed default in payment of the loan amount, suppressing the same she entered into the suit agreement on 26.12.2012. The plaintiff having no other option, approached the bank and it is the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 65,22,704/-. The plaintiff is only liable to pay

Rs.45,00,000/- towards balance sale consideration, thereby the defendant no.1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 20,22,704/-, hence the suit.

3. Written Statement is filed by the defendant no.2 denying the averments of the plaint and further contended that the suit is filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant no.1 but deliberately remained exparte. It is true that the defendant no.1 was the owner of the suit schedule property having purchased under registered sale deed, but it is false that he entered into agreement of sale to sell the same in favour of plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 90,00,000/-, he received Rs. 20,00,000/- on that day and executed agreement of sale and further it is false that the plaintiff further paid Rs. 20,00,000/- and subsequently also paid Rs.

5,00,000/- and possession was delivered, etc.,. It is false that she is ready and willing to pay balance sale consideration, her part of contract is not bonafide. It is the defendant no.2 who is in possession of the suit schedule property from the date of purchase.

It is further contended that in the first week of October 2012, the defendant no.1 along with her husband approached the defendant no.2 and offered to sell the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of

Rs. 35,05,000/- for which the defendant no.2 agreed, he also paid Rs.

5,00,000/- towards advance and to that effect receipt was passed, it was orally agreed that the defendant no.2 should pay the balance sale consideration within three months and obtained registered sale deed, thereby he paid entire balance sale consideration and obtained

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.5 of 17 registered sale deed on 05.01.2013, and thus he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment. He also let out the first floor portion of the suit schedule property to a tenant. The plaintiff having full knowledge of the registered sale deed executed in his favour by the defendant no.1 in collusion with defendant no.1 created the suit agreement also receipts, plaintiff is never in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant no.2 filed criminal case against them in Cr.no. 549 of 2013 dt.

03.08.2013, it is the defendant no.2 who is the bonafide purchaser having purchased for valuable consideration.

Additional written statement also filed by the defendant

contending that on receiving copy of the petition in IA no. 63 of 2019, by the counsel for the plaintiff wherein it is stated that the defendant no.1 and her husband obtained loan by depositing the title deeds and plaintiff discharged the said loan obtained the original link documents from Kotak

Mahendra Bank, thereafter on scrutiny and verification of the link documents lying with her he was shocked and came to know that the link document that was handed over to him were fake, forged and fabricated. The defendant no.1 and her husband suppressed the factum of obtaining loan from the said bank at the time of selling the suit schedule property to defendant no.2. Immediately he lodged a complaint in police station. The plaintiff suppressed the material facts and not approached the court with clean hands, hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, following issues are framed:

i.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract?

ii.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages for breach of contract?

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.6 of 17 iii.Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

iv.To what relief?

Additional Issue dt. 30.09.2019:

01. Whether the D1 and her husband handed over forged and fabricated link documents to the D2 thereby played fraud on him?

Additional Issue dt. 24.03.2024:

01. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.20,42,654/- with interest @ 18% per annum from defendant no.1 as prayed for?

5. To substantiate the claim of the plaintiffs, PW1 is examined and Ex.A1 to A36 are got marked. On behalf of Defendants, DW1 and

DW2 are examined and and Ex.B1 to B10 are got marked.

6. Heard the arguments of both sides. Written arguments also filed by the defendant no.2.

ISSUEs no.1:

7. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant no.1 entered into agreement to sell the suit schedule property, received part of consideration, he executed agreement of sale in her favour, subsequently also received further amount and issued the receipts and further delivered possession later on, but subsequently failed to execute the registered sale deed, with a malafide intention executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2, having come to know about the obtaining housing loan by the defendant no.1 by depositing the title deeds pertaining to the suit property she cleared the said debt also hence entitled for specific performance.

8. On the other hand, the contention of the defendant no.2 is that defendant no.1 along with her husband approached him, offered to

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.7 of 17 sell the suit schedule property, thereby he paid Rs.5,00,000/-, receipt was issued to that effect, subsequently on payment of entire balance sale consideration, registered sale deed was executed, since then he is in possession and enjoyment, the plaintiff having knowledge of his registered sale deed in collusion with the defendant no.1 created the suit agreement of sale, he is a bonafide purchaser, hence plaintiff is not entitled for any relief.

9. To prove the case of the plaintiff she herself examined as PW1, and her evidence is in tune with her pleadings. In her evidence she got marked the agreement of sale, receipts, bank challans, draft sale deed, legal notice, bank statements, letters addressed by her to the bank where the defendant no.1 deposited the title deeds by obtaining loan, payment receipts, electricity and water bills, property tax receipts and income tax receipts, order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal etc., under

Ex.A1 to Ex.A36.

10. On behalf of he defendant no.2, he himself examined as DW1 and his evidence is also in the same lines of the written statement. In his evidence he got marked, the advance receipt, registered sale deed document, receipts, bank statement, Encumbrance Certificates, sale deeds etc., under Ex.B1 to B10.

11. Further he also placed the evidence of one Venugopal Reddy as DW2. It is his testimony that in his presence, Defendant no.2 paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash to the defendant no.1 after receiving the said amount she issued receipt etc.,.

12. It is not in dispute that originally the defendant no.1 was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Both the plaintiff and defendant no.2 are claiming that the defendant no.1 agreed to sell the

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.8 of 17 suit schedule property to them. As stated above, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 offered to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs. 90,00,000/-, after receiving Rs.20,00,000/- as advance, he executed agreement of sale on 26.12.2022. The said agreement of sale is marked as Ex.A1. The said agreement of sale clearly shows about the receipt of Rs. 20,00,000/- on that day by the defendant no.1 from plaintiff. Further, the case of the plaintiff is that on request of the defendant no.1, she further paid an amount of

Rs.20,00,000/- on 09.01.2013 for which the defendant no.1 issued receipt, the said receipt is marked as Ex.A2 which supports the version of plaintiff.

13. Further plea and evidence of plaintiff, PW1 that again defendant asked to pay Rs.5,00,000/-, on that she insisted for execution of registered sale deed or deliver the possession, for which he agreed when she paid Rs. 5,00,000/- he issued a receipt under Ex.A3 and further delivered the possession. It is also the case of the plaintiff that as the defendant no.1 asked her to make ready the sale deed duly paying stamp duty and he will execute registered sale deed on 12.02.2013, she paid challan for Rs.2,58,650/- towards stamp duty and challan charges, went to Sub-Registrar Office, but the defendant no.1 failed to appear.

Ex.A4, Ex.A5 bank challan and customer copy of the challan clearly show that she paid the said amount by way of challan towards stamp duty and registration charges. Further Ex.A6 shows the sale deed was also prepared. As the defendant failed to appear on that day, she also got issued legal notice by mentioning all these facts under Ex.A7 which is received by the defendant no.1 under Ex.A11 on 27.02.2013.

14. It is her further case and evidence that after issuance of the said notice the defendant no.1 asked her to come to the registration

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.9 of 17 office on 06.03.2013 for registration, so she withdrew amount from her bank, waited at registration office, but the defendant no.1 failed to register and produce the original title deed, thereby she was constrained to deposit the said amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- again into her account.

The bank statement filed by the plaintiff under Ex.A13 clearly proves that she withdrew Rs. 45,00,000/- i.e., balance sale consideration on 06.03.2013 from her bank account and again deposited on the same day.

15. As stated earlier, it is also the evidence of plaintiff, PW1 that on receipt of further amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 11.02.2013, possession was delivered in her favour. Plaintiff has also filed the electricity bills and payment receipts pertaining to the suit property from the month of

February 2013 onwards till March 2022 as filed under Ex.A24 and

Ex.A25. So also she also filed the water demand notices with receipts from March 2013 to February 2022 under Ex.A26 Further, Ex.A27 cash receipts issued by the Brightening Gas Services clearly show the name of the plaintiff for the suit property from the month of August, 2013 till

September, 2021. Further the plaintiff also filed the property tax receipts under Ex.A21 from the year 2015 onwards till April, 2021.

16. In this case, as stated earlier, the contention of the defendant no.2 is that the defendant no.1 and her husband offered to sell the suit schedule property to him, he agreed to purchase it for Rs.35,05,000/- and paid Rs. 5,00,000/- in advance for which she issued a receipt. The said receipt is filed and got marked under Ex.B1. The contents of Ex.B1 shows the same, but it is not an agreement of sale. Nothing is mentioned about the demand of balance sale consideration in the said document. The defendant no.2 also examined the witness of Ex.B1 as

DW2, who deposed in favour of defendant no.2 Nodoubt, the said

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.10 of 17 document is prior to the agreement of sale, Ex.A1 executed in favour of the plaintiff, but as stated earlier, nothing is mentioned when the balance sale consideration to be paid etc.,.

17. It is the contention of the defendant no.2 that it was oral agreement that he should pay balance sale consideration within three months. Except his sole version, no other oral evidence is placed.

Further when a document or receipt is executed on receipt of Rs.

5,00,000/- nothing will prevent to write about the balance sale consideration and period within which it to be paid. According to defendant no.2, as he paid entire sale consideration, the registered sale deed under Ex.B3 was executed on 05.01.2013. Admittedly, it is subsequent to the agreement of sale Ex.A1, executed in favour of the plaintiff.

18. It is also the contention of the Defendant no.2 that possession was delivered on that day in his favour. Admittedly, no document at all placed by the defendant no.2 to prove his possession except the registered sale deed. The same is also admitted by the DW1,

Defendant no.2 in his cross examination. Admittedly, the sale consideration shown under Ex.B3 registered sale deed is only

Rs.35,05,000/-. Whereas, as per Ex.A1, agreement of sale it is

Rs.90,00,000/-. No material is brought on record by the defendant no.2 to show he parted said amount to defendant no.1 on the date of registered sale deed on 06.01.2013. Further, it is the testimony of

Defendant no.2, DW1 in his cross examination that they executed an agreement of sale in writing on 07.10.2012, but it is not filed. Further, the said version of execution of agreement of sale in writing is not at all pleaded in the written statement. The document that was executed on the said date is only receipt Ex.B1. It is his evidence that on the date of

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.11 of 17 registration, keys of the suit house were handed over to him i.e., possession is delivered, but no document to show his possession subsequent to that are filed. On the other hand, as discussed above, the plaintiff filed several documents showing her possession from the month of February, 2013 onwards.

19. It is his further testimony in cross examination that he has paid the amount in cash. Nothing is pleaded and deposed how he got said amount to pay in cash. The bank statement filed by him does not prove that he has withdrawn that amount during the relevant period so as to believe he paid in cash. Further, though he deposed he let out the ground floor, he could not say the name of the tenant, he has not examined the said person to prove his contention. He further admitted in cross examination that the Ex.A4 to Ex.A26 filed by the plaintiff i.e., bills and receipts are pertaining to the suit property. Though he deposed that he also paid the electricity, water bills and property tax, in respect of suit schedule property and he is in possession of the said bills and receipts, he did not file the same. Further he deposed in cross examination that he has been collecting the electricity, water, property tax bills from the authorities, but he did not file for the reasons best known to him. Further, he deposed that he do not remember how many bills are with him and how many bills he has paid. All these circumstances make the contention of the defendant no.2 as not believable.

20. The further contention of the defendant no.2 is that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 colluded and created agreement of sale, but actually no sale consideration was paid, no possession was delivered, etc.,. it is he who paid consideration and obtained registered sale deed etc., As stated earlier, it is the agreement of sale Ex.A1 which was

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.12 of 17 executed much prior to the registered sale deed in favour of Defendant no.2. Ex.B1 is not at all an agreement of sale but only receipt. In this case, as discussed above, the material brought on record by the plaintiff clearly prove that subsequent to the execution of the agreement of sale she made payments, further bank statements are also filed which support her contention. She also paid challans towards stamp duty and registration charges. The documents under Ex.A24 to Ex.A26 clearly show her possession. If really it is a created one, the question of payment of such amounts towards stamp duty and penalty, registration charges etc., does not arise.

21. Further, it is required to mention here that when she came to know about the housing loan obtained by the defendant no.1 by depositing the title deeds of the suit schedule property from Kotak

Mahendra Bank, she addressed a letter requesting to allow her to repay the suit amount under Ex.A16. After she was allowed under Ex.A17 by the bank, she paid entire due amount of Rs. 65, 22,704/- under Ex.A18 to Ex.A20, to that effect letter was addressed to her under Ex.A21 and handed over the title deeds of Defendant no.1 pertaining to the suit schedule property and also the link documents under Ex.A22 and

Ex.A23. The said documents clearly disprove the contention of the defendant no.2 that in collusion with Defendant no.1 agreement of sale,

Ex.A1 is created. As stated earlier in the Ex.A1, agreement of sale itself it is mentioned that she has paid Rs. 20,00,000/-. It is the categorical evidence of PW1 that market value of the suit property is mentioned in the draft sale deed, Ex.A6. The same is also shown in the registered sale deed of Defendant no.2 under Ex.B3. It is suggested by the defendant no.2 that by managing the bank officials, she obtained Ex.A18 to Ex.A21 but the same is denied. The payment receipts are also filed, thereby the

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.13 of 17 question of managing the bank authorities does not arise. Ex.A33 clearly shows that she has withdrawn said amount from her bank account on that day, further she also has withdrawn further Rs.

20,00,000/- on 09.01.2013 from her bank account under Ex.A32. Hence question of crating the agreement of sale does not arise (which is prior to registered sale deed).

22. In this case, all the documents brought on record clearly show that she was ready and willing to perform her part of contract, i.e., payment of the balance sale consideration. She was also in possession of the said amount. All the necessary steps that required to get the registered sale deed from the defendant no.1 were taken by her, but it is the defendant no.1 who did not execute the registered sale deed.

23. Hence for the reasons discussed above, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of he agreement of sale which was executed in her favour.

Thus issue no.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff.

ISSUE NO. 3:

24. The agreement of sale Ex.A1 was executed in favour of the plaintiff dt. 26.12.2012. The suit is filed by her in the year 2013 itself.

Subsequent to that also she made payments under Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 to an extent of Rs.25,00,000/-. Further on 06.03.2013 itself she has withdrawn the balance sale consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/- and paid the stamp duty and registration charges, got prepared the sale deed also but it is the defendant no.1 who did not come and execute the registered sale deed. Thereby she also gave the legal notice for which also though he stated that he will execute the registered sale deed subsequently,

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.14 of 17 failed. Hence, it cannot be said that plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform her part of contract. Further, the suit is within the limitation.

Thus this issue is decided accordingly.

ISSUE no. 2:

25. Merely because the defendant no.1 failed to execute the registered sale deed, that itself cannot be said that it caused mental agony to plaintiff and she is entitled for damages as prayed. No sufficient material is brought on record except her sole testimony which itself is not sufficient, hene this court is of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled for this relief.

Thus this issue is decided against the plaintiff.

ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1:

26. Admittedly, the original documents are lying in the bank having deposited by the defendant no.1 and the same were returned by the bank to the plaintiff on payment of entire due amount, as per the documentary evidence brought on record as discussed above. Then the question of handing over original and genuine documents to defendant no.2 does not arise. It is also pleaded by defendant No.2 in his written statement that he came to know later on that he was not handed over with the original documents.

Thus this issue is decided accordingly.

ADDITIONAL ISSUE no. 2:

27. As discussed above, the plaintiff has paid Rs. 45,00,000/- by the date of filing of the suit, so remaining balance amount to be paid was only Rs. 45,00,000/-. Admittedly, she paid an amount of

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.15 of 17

Rs.65,22,704/- under Ex.A18 to Ex.A20 and cleared housing loan obtained by defendant no.1 which clearly shows that she paid excess amount. Thereby she is entitled for the return of said excess amount from Defendant no.1 with interest.

Thus this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant.

ISSUE No.4:

28. As it is held in issue no.1 that plaintiff is entitled for specific performance, recovery of amount, suit is decreed.

29. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for specific performance of agreement of sale dt. 26.12.2012 directing the defendants no.1 and 2 to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months from this day, failing which, the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the same under due process of law.

Further, plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount of

Rs.20,42,654/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Fourty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Four Only ) from Defendant no.1 with interest @ 12% per annum from 07.01.2014 till this date and @ 6% per annum from this date till the date of realization.

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

me in the open Court on this the 22 nd day of April, 2024.

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: P. Dhana LakshmiDW1 : B. Sudhakara Reddy DW2 : J. Venugopal Reddy

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.16 of 17

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original Agreement of sale dt. 26.12.2012 Ex.A2: Original receipt for Rs. 20,00,000/- dt. 09.01.2013 Ex.A3: Original receipt for Rs. 5,00,000/- dt. 11.02.2013 (marked subject to objection) Ex.A4: Bank Challan dt. 11.02.2013 Ex.A5 : Customer copy of challan no. 687591 dt. 11.02.2013 Ex.A6 : Document prepared for registration on Non Judicial Stamp Paper dt.12.02.2013 Ex.A7: Office copy of legal notice dt. 23.02.2013 Ex.A8: Postal receipt dt. 23.02.2013 Ex.A9: Postal receipt dt. 23.02.2013 Ex.A10: Returned cover with acknowledgment card Ex.A11: Postal acknowledgment card Ex.A12: Photographs of plaintiff’s possession over suit property Ex.A13: Bank statement of plaintiff dt. 06.03.2013 Ex.A14: Encumbrance Certificate dt. 25.02.2013 Ex.A15: Market Value Certificate dt. 07.03.2013 Ex.A16: Original letter by plaintiff to Manager, Home Finance Division, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Somajiguda, Hyderabad dt. 07.01.2014 Ex.A17: Original letter by the Manager, Home Finance Division, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Somajiguda, Hyderabad dt. 07.01.2013 Ex.A18: Original receipt no. 2218366 for Rs. 10,00,000/-, Rs. 10,00,000/- passed by Manager, home Finance Division, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Somajiguda, Hyderabad dt. 07.01.2014 and 07.01.2013 Ex.A19: Original receipt no. 2218368 for Rs. 10,00,000/- , Rs.46,00,000/- passed by Manager, home Finance Division, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Somajiguda, Hyderabad dt. 07.01.2014 and 07.01.2013 Ex.A20: Original receipt no. 2218369 for Rs. 10,00,000/-, Rs. 9,22,704/- passed by Manager, home Finance Division, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Somajiguda, Hyderabad dt. 07.01.2014 and 07.01.2013 Ex.A21: Original NOC issued by the Manager, home Finance Division, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Somajiguda, Hyderabad dt. 16.01.2014 Ex.A22: Original registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 345 of 2010 dt. 02.01.2010 Ex.A23: Original registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 1816 of 1994 dt. 16.02.1994, (marked subject to objection that it is a colour xerox document.) Ex.A24: Electricity bills (26nos) Ex.A25: Electricity bill payment receipts (26 in number) Ex.A26: Demand notices with receipts issued by HMWS & SB (46nos) Ex.A27: Cash memos (29nos) issued by Brightening Gas Services Ex.A28: Property tax receipts (7nos) Ex.A29: Income tax returns for the assessment year 2013-14 Ex.A30: Income tax returns for the assessment year 2014-15

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.17 of 17

Ex.A31: Joint passbook of Vijaya Bank in the name of plaintiff and her husband Ex.A32: Statement of account from 01.07.2011 to 31.07.2011 of SBI Ex.A33: Statement of account from 01.07.2012 to 31.12.2013 of SBI Ex.A34: Income Tax Return verification form along with computation of total income for the assessment year 2013 – 2014 Ex.A35: Income Tax Return verification form along with computation of total income for the assessment year 2014 – 2015 Ex.A36: CC of order in SA no. 526 of 2014 of Debts Recovery Tribunal – 1 at Hyderabad.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1: Original token advance receipt dt. 07.10.2012 Ex.B2: Original market value assistance dt. 30.11.2012 Ex.B3: Original sale deed bearing doc.no. 376 of 2013 dt. 05.01.2013 Ex.B4: Original document receipt dt. 05.01.2013 Ex.B5: Original document receipt dt. 08.01.2013 Ex.B6: Statement of account SBI dt. 04.02.2013 Ex.B7: Original EC dt. 14.06.2012 (From 01.10.2007 to 14.06.2012) Ex.B8: Original EC dt. 16.06.2014 (from 01.10.2007 to 16.06.2014) Ex.B9: Sale deed bearing doc.no. 345 of 2010 dt. 22.01.2010 Ex.B10: Sale deed bearing doc.no. 1818 of 1994 dt. 16.02.1994

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.18 of 17

PO is on CL for judgment, call on 04.04.2023

CMO

OS 283 of 2013

Page No.19 of 17

OS no. 283 of 2013

22.04.2024

Judgment pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for specific performance of agreement of sale dt. 26.12.2012 directing the defendants no.1 and 2 to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months from this day, failing which, the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the same under due process of law.

Further, plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs.20,42,654/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Fourty Two

Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Four

Only) from Defendant no.1 with interest @ 12% per annum from 07.01.2014 till this date and @ 6% per annum from this date till the date of realization..

IIADJ

Fair Copy 1 MVOP 631 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: G. BHAVANI CHANDRA,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

FAC CHAIRMAN, M.V.A.C.T-CUM-

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Wednesday, the 08th day of November, 2023

M.V.O.P.NO. 631 of 2016

Between:

1. Bugga Bharathamma W/o. Late Basawaiah aged 33 years, Occ: Housewife

2. Bugga Mahesh S/o. Late Basawaiah aged 20 years, Occ: Student

3. Bugga Roja D/o. Late Basawaiah aged 19 years, Occ: Household

4. Bugga Pawan Kalyan S/o. Late Basawaiah aged 11 years, Occ: Student (Petitioner No.4 being minor rep. by his mother and natural guardian i.e., P-1)

5. Bugga Sukkamma W/o. Late B.Beerappa aged 79 years, Occ: Household

All are R/o. H.No: 8-5-55, Karmanghat Weaker Section, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad N/o. 17-23, Narayanagiri Bhoodanpochampally Bhoodhan Pochampally, for New VTC Nalgonda.

…...Petitioners

And

1. Ramidi Vijayender Reddy S/o. Yadi Reddy aged major, Occ: Business

2. Ramidi Vijayalakshmi W/o. R.Vijayender Reddy aged major, Occ: Household Both R/o. 1/181/2, Binnuru Complex Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District – 501 505

3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. Ltd., 6th floor, F-Block, Surya Towers S.P.Road, Secunderabad – 500 003. Policy No.61310231150200001226 valid from 17.07.2015 to 16.07.2016

4. Buddam Srinu S/o.B.Mallaiah aged 30years, Occ: Driver R/o. Narayanagiri Village, Pochampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

...Respondents.

Fair Copy 2 MVOP 631 of 2016

PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 of M.V.ACT

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 09.10.2023 in the presence of Sri.S.Narsimha, counsel for the Petitioners, Sri.N.Jagan Reddy, counsel for respondent No.1 & 2, Sri.P.Umapathi Rao, Advocate for Respondent no.3, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act 1988 and Rules 455 of APMV Rules 1989 claiming compensation for the death of deceased in a Road Traffic Accident.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that on 09.02.2016 at about 06:30pm hours the deceased and his villager went to Kothaguda

Village on a tractor bearing No. AP 29 AH 8213 and trolley bearing No. AP 24

AJ 8240 and unloaded the grass load, while returning to their village, on the way when they reached near SLC Engineering college at Piglipur village, the driver of the tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed road side tumor on that the deceased fell down on the road and the said tractor driver drove the vehicle oh him, as such, he sustained bleeding injuries and died on the spot. On a complaint, a case is registered under Cr.no. 131 of 2016 u/sec. 304-A of IPC by PS Hayathnagar.

2a)The deceased was aged 40yrs, hale and healthy, was doing as agriculture employee under Mr.R.Ravinder Reddy and earning a sum of

Rs.12,000/- per month. The petitioner No.1 is the wife, the petitioner No.2 to 4 are children and petitioner No.5 is the mother of the deceased. On his death, they lost love and affection. The respondent No.1 and 2 are owners, respondent No.3 is the insurer and respondent No.4 is the driver of the crime vehicle, tractor bearing No. AP 29 AH 8213 and trolley bearing No. AP 24 AJ 8240, thereby, all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners, hence, this petition for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

Fair Copy 3 MVOP 631 of 2016

3.Counter filed by respondent No.1 with adoption memo of respondent

No.2 that he is no way concern with the alleged accident, the respondent

No.1’s vehicle was never involved in the accident, he is not aware about the accident by its tractor as alleged by the petitioners, the said vehicle is falsely made involved. It is false that the deceased was aged 40years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- is excessive, not admissible hence, liable to be dismissed.

4. Counter filed by the respondent No.3 denying the averments of the petitioners and further contended that the manner of the accident and death of the accident is denied and petitioners are put to strict proof of the same and also doesn’t admit about the age, income of the deceased etc., The driver who drove the crime vehicle was not having any valid driving license, the claim is excessive and further the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation as the risk is not covered under the policy, hence prayed to dismiss.

5. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for enquiry:

a) Whether the pleaded accident that took place on 09.02.2016 at about 18.30hours near SLC, Engineering College at Piglipur Village Limits while the deceased Bugga Basawaiah and his villager M.Sreenu returning from Kothaguda village to their village i.e.,Narayanagiri, Pochampally Mandal on tractor bearing NO. AP 29 AH 8213 and trally No. AP 24 AJ 8240, the driver of tractor drove his vehicle rash and negligent manner and dashed road side tumor and resulted the deceased fell down on the road and said tractor driver drove the vehicle on him and got severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot.

b) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and from which of the respondent?

c) To what relief?

6.On behalf of the Petitioners, the petitioner No.1 herself examined as PW.1, One R.Rakesh Reddy was examined as PW.2, K.Naveen was

Fair Copy 4 MVOP 631 of 2016

examined as PW.3 and Exs.P1 to P12 are marked. On behalf of respondents, no one was examined but Ex.B1 is marked with consent.

7. Heard the arguments of both sides. Written arguments are filed by petitioners.

ISSUE NO.1

8.As the petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of

M.V.Act, they have to prove that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle, tractor bearing No. AP 29 AH 8213 and trally No. AP 24 AJ 8240 and deceased died.

9. To prove the case of the the petitioners, the petitioner no.1/wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1. It is her testimony that on the date of the accident, the deceased, her husband along with his villager namely Sreenu went to Kothaguda Village on tractor bearing No. AP 29 AH 8213 and trolley bearing No. AP 24 AJ 8240 unloaded the grass, while returning, when they reached near SLC Engineering college at Piglipur

Village, the driver of the tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the road side tumor, when the deceased fell down and driver drove the vehicle on him, as a result, he sustained injuries and died on the spot. In her evidence she got marked FIR, charge sheet, Inquest report and PME report as Ex.P1 to P4. Even during the course of the cross examination, it is her testimony that her husband was going on tractor at the time of the accident. She denied the suggestion that the deceased was not travelling in the tractor, wantedly the said tractor was shown and the respondent No.1 and 2 who are the owners of the said tractor and trailer are no way concern with the accident etc., but she denied it.

10. Apart, the evidence of PW.1, the petitioners also placed the evidence of one K.Naveen as PW.3. It is the testimony of PW.3 that while he

Fair Copy 5 MVOP 631 of 2016

was coming from Kothaguda side after attending his works, he noticed that the driver and another person were proceeding on the tractor, when they reached near SLC Engineering college at Piglipur Village, the driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed road side tumor, on that the deceased fell down on the road and the said tractor driver drove the vehicle on him, thereby he sustained injuries and died on the spot. Even in the cross examination also he stated that he has witnessed the accident, but however it is elicited in the cross examination that he doesn’t know who drove the tractor, crime vehicle and whether his name is mentioned in the charge sheet etc. Admittedly, as per the charge sheet which is filed under Ex.P2, he is not the eye-witness. Even if his evidence is kept aside, the documentary evidence placed by the petitioners to prove the accident and the death of the deceased in the accident.

11. In this case, it is the plea of the respondent No.1 & 2, owners of the crime vehicle that they are no way concern with the accident but a false case is registered by implicating the said vehicle. But the same is denied by

PW.1 as stated earlier. Furthermore, there is no material brought on record to prove the said contention of respondent No.1 & 2. Furthermore they also didn’t enter into witness box to depose the same. When a party to the suit doesn’t enter into the witness box to depose himself, and offers himself for cross examine him by other side a presumption would arise that a case setup by him is not a correct one. Thus, in this case, not only the documentary evidence but also no oral evidence in support of the contention of respondent

No.1 & 2.

12. Furthermore, in this case the documentary evidence placed by the petitioners clearly disprove the contention of the respondent No.1 & 2. In this case, the accident took place on 09.02.2016 at about 06:30pm hours. On the same day a complaint was lodged at about 09:30pm wherein it is

Fair Copy 6 MVOP 631 of 2016

categorically mentioned that the accident took place by the said crime vehicle. So also as per the charge sheet which was filed after due investigation, the accident took place by the crime vehicle, tractor bearing

No. AP 29 AH 8213 and trolley bearing No. AP 24 AJ 8240 and the driver of it drove it in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, by the evidence of PW1 and

PW3, coupled with Ex.P1 to P4, it is proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle, the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident.

Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners.

ISSUE no. 2:

13. As it is held in Issue no.1 that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., tractor bearing No. AP 29 AH 8213 and trally No. AP 24 AJ 8240, deceased died in the said accident, the petitioners being heirs are entitled for compensation. Though it is suggested to PW1 by the respondent no.1 and 2 that no material is placed to show the petitioners are the wife, children and mother of the deceased but in this case, the petitioners placed the aadhar Cards under Ex.P7 to P11, which clearly show that they are the wife, children and mother of the deceased.

14. Coming to the point of quantum of compensation, it is the evidence of PW1, wife of the deceased that the deceased was 40yrs on the date of accident. Apart from her testimony, in FIR, charge sheet, Inquest and

PME report under Ex.P1 to P4, it is mentioned the deceased was aged 40 years. No contra evidence is brought on record by the respondents to prove that the deceased was not 40 years on the date of accident. Hence, the age of the deceased is held as 40yrs. Thereby the suitable multiplier is ‘15’. (As per Sarala Verma case). Though, it is suggested to PW.1 by the respondent No.1 & 2 that no material is placed to show the petitioners are the wife, children and mother of the deceased but in this case, the petitioners

Fair Copy 7 MVOP 631 of 2016

placed the Aadhar cards under Ex.P7 to P11, which clearly show that they are the wife, children and mother of the deceased.

15. It is also the testimony of PW1 that the deceased was the agriculture employee under Mr.R.Ravinder Reddy and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. In support of her contention with regard to income she also filed

Ex.P6, original salary certificate. In this case, the petitioners also placed the evidence of son of R.Ravinder Reddy namely R.Rakesh Reddy as PW.2. It is his testimony that the deceased worked as agriculture employee under his father

R.Ravinder Reddy and he used to pay Rs.12,000/- per month. He also deposed that Ex.P6 was issued by his father. In this case, it is the contention of the petitioners and the evidence of PW.2 that on the date of evidence of

PW.2 the said R.Ravinder Reddy is no more, thereby the evidence of PW.2 is placed. But in the absence of any documentary evidence, the only evidence of PW.2 is not believable that the deceased was the agriculture employee and was getting Rs.12,000/- per month. Except Ex.P6 no other document i.e., any account books or any salary certificates, bank passbook, etc., are filed by the petitioners, thereby no reliance can be placed. However considering the age, income and ability to earn, year of accident i.e., 2016 etc., his income is hereby notionally assessed @ Rs.7,000/- per month. As deceased was aged about 40 years, he is entitled for future prospects of 30% (as per Pranay

Seth case), hence total comes to Rs.9,100/- (Rs.7,000/-+2,100/-).

16. As the petitioner was married person and family members are five, 1/4th to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses i.e.,2,275/-. If the said amount is deducted, it comes to Rs.6,825/- per month (Rs.9,100/- - 2,275/-). His annual income comes to Rs.81,900/- (Rs.6,825/- x 12). When it is multiplied with 15, it comes to Rs.12,28,500/- (Rs.81,900/- x

15) (Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

Fair Copy 8 MVOP 631 of 2016

another). Hence, the said amount is awarded to petitioners towards loss of earnings.

17. The petitioner No.1 is also entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium and the Petitioner No. 4 is hereby awarded an amount of Rs.44,000/- as parental consortium for loss of love, affection, care and companionship (Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nanu

Ram and others), the petitioners are also entitled an amount of 16,500/- towards loss of estate and another Sum of Rs. 16,500/- towards funeral expenses (NIC Vs. Pranay Sethi).

Thus, the aforesaid discussion would lead to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for the following amounts under various heads as follows:

1)Compensation for loss of life Rs.12,28,500-00/-

2) Spousal consortiumRs.44,000-00/-

3) Parental consortiumRs.44,000-00/-

3) Loss of EstateRs.16,500-00/-

4) Funeral ExpensesRs.16,500-00/- TOTAL Rs.13,49,500 -00 (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred only )

18. Coming to the liability of payment of compensation, Respondents no.1 and 2 are the owners of the crime vehicle, respondent No.4 is the driver of the crime vehicle and respondent no.3 is the insurer of the said vehicle.

Ex.B1 insurance policy shows the insurance to the crime vehicle, tractor bearing no. AP 29 AH 8213. The insurance period is from 17.07.2015 to 16.07.2016. The accident occurred on 09.02.2016. Thus, the Ex.B2 policy was in force as on the date of accident.

19. Coming to the liability, it is the contention of the respondent

No.3 that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having any valid driving license on the date of the accident. PW.1 also deposed in the cross examination that she doesn’t know whether the driver of the tractor was

Fair Copy 9 MVOP 631 of 2016

holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident. In this case, though the respondent No.4, driver appeared he didn’t file any counter. No material at present to show that the driver, respondent No.4 is having valid driving license on the date of the accident. The owners of the crime vehicle respondent No.1 & 2 also didn’t place any evidence in that regard. No doubt the burden lies on the respondent No.3 to prove that there is no driving license to the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of the accident. But in this case as per the charge sheet itself the respondent No.4, driver of the crime vehicle is not holding any valid driving license, the said charge sheet is filed after due investigation, thereby contra to the said contention no material is placed either by the owner or the driver of the crime vehicle.

Hence, this court is of the view that no driving license to the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident, thereby violation of policy terms.

20. However, in National Insurance Company Limited Vs,.

Swaran Singh reported in, 2004, ACJ (SC), it is held “Where the Driver did not possess the valid Driving License and there are breach of policy conditions etc., pay and recovery can be ordered in case of third party risk ”.

In Shamanna and another Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental

Insurance Company Limited and another, dated 8-2-2018, the principle of Swaran Singh’s case was reiterated.

In Parminder Singh vs. New India Insurance Co.Ltd., and others in Civil Appeal No. 5123 of 2019, it is held that “When the driver of the offending vehicle has no valid driving license at the time of accident, the insurance company is not liable, but it can be directed to pay the compensation to the claimant and recover the amount from owner and driver of the offending vehicle”.

21.It is also the contention of the respondent no.3, insurance company that crime vehicle is not meant for carrying the passengers, deceased proceeded on the vehicle along with driver, policy does not cover, thereby it

Fair Copy 10 MVOP 631 of 2016

is not liable to pay any compensation. It is not in dispute that Ex.B1 policy is in force in respect of crime vehicle. As per the complaint Ex.P1 and also the evidence of PW1, deceased was proceeding on the Tractor along with the driver, he drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the right side Tumor, then he fell down and the driver drove the vehicle over him, as a result, sustained injuries and died. So, it is not the case that the deceased was traveling in the trailer, but on the tractor. As per the decision reported in 2017 CJ (SC) 150 Supreme Court of India in case of

Manuara Khatun & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Singh & Ors, it is held that “In case of gratuitous passenger the Insurer can be directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimant therein and to recover the same from the Insured”.

22. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, this tribunal is of the view that the principle of “pay and recovery” can be invoked in the present case.

23.Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, this tribunal holds that the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.13,49,500/-(Rupees

Thirteen Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred only ) from respondent

No.1 & 2, owners of the crime vehicle, but payable by respondent No.3 at first instance being the insurer of the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 28 W 0645 along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and then at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1 & 2, owners of the crime vehicle.

Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.3

24.In the result, this petition is allowed in part granting compensation of Rs.13 ,49,500 /- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Five

Hundred only) with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, thereby the

Fair Copy 11 MVOP 631 of 2016

respondents No.1 to 4 being the owners, insurer and driver of the crime vehicle are liable to pay the said compensation amount.

However, the said compensation amount is payable by the

Respondent No.3, being the insurer of the crime vehicle in the first instance and shall deposit this amount into this court within a period of one month from today with a liberty to recover the same from respondents No.1 and 2 being the owners of the crime vehicle. In default, the Petitioners are entitled to proceed against the Respondents according to Law.

Out of the said compensation amount, the petitioner No.1 being the wife of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.4,49,500/- (Rupees four lakhs forty nine thousand five hundred only), petitioner no. 2 to 4 being the children of the deceased are awarded an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) each and the petitioner No.5 being the mother of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only).

On deposit of the said amount, the Petitioner no.1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw 50% of compensation amount with proportionate costs and interest and remaining 50% is directed to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any

Nationalized bank for a period of two years. Petitioner no. 5 is permitted to withdraw total compensation amount with proportionate costs and interest.

The compensation amount awarded to the petitioner no. 4, minor is directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank till the date of his attaining majority.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).

Office is directed to prepare decree after payment of court fee.

Dictated to Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 08th day of November, 2023.

FAC CHAIRMAN, M.V.A.C.T-CUM-

III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Fair Copy 12 MVOP 631 of 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONERS FOR THE RESPONDENTS

P.W.1 Bugga Bharathamma - NIL - P.W.2 R.Rakesh Reddy P.W.3 K.Naveen

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONERS

Ex.P1 : CC of FIR in crime No.131/2016 of PS Hayathnagar dated 09.02.2016 Ex.P2 : CC of Charge sheet dated 11.03.2016 Ex.P3 : CC of Inquest report dated 10.02.2016 Ex.P4 : CC of postmortem examination report dated 10.02.2016 Ex.P5 : CC of motor vehicle inspector report Ex.P6 : Original salary certificate issued by Mr.Ravinder Reddy dated 12.03.2016 Ex.P7 : Original Aadhar card of Bugga Bharatamma Ex.P8 : Original Aadhar card of Bugga Mahesh Ex.P9 : Original Aadhar card of Bugga Roja Ex.P10: Original Aadhar card of Bugga Pawan Kalyan Ex.P11: Original Aadhar card of Bugga Sukkamma Ex.P12: Death Certificate of R.Ravinder Reddy

FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1: Policy, dt: 17.07.2015.

FAC CHAIRMAN, M.V.A.C.T-CUM-

III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Fair Copy 13 MVOP 631 of 2016

Fair Copy 1 MVOP 631 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: G. BHAVANI CHANDRA,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

FAC CHAIRMAN, M.V.A.C.T-CUM-

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Wednesday, the 08th day of November, 2023

M.V.O.P.NO. 631 of 2016

Between:

1. Bugga Bharathamma W/o. Late Basawaiah aged 33 years, Occ: Housewife

2. Bugga Mahesh S/o. Late Basawaiah aged 20 years, Occ: Student

3. Bugga Roja D/o. Late Basawaiah aged 19 years, Occ: Household

4. Bugga Pawan Kalyan S/o. Late Basawaiah aged 11 years, Occ: Student (Petitioner No.4 being minor rep. by his mother and natural guardian i.e., P-1)

5. Bugga Sukkamma W/o. Late B.Beerappa aged 79 years, Occ: Household

All are R/o. H.No: 8-5-55, Karmanghat Weaker Section, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad N/o. 17-23, Narayanagiri Bhoodanpochampally Bhoodhan Pochampally, for New VTC Nalgonda.

…...Petitioners

And

1. Ramidi Vijayender Reddy S/o. Yadi Reddy aged major, Occ: Business

2. Ramidi Vijayalakshmi W/o. R.Vijayender Reddy aged major, Occ: Household Both R/o. 1/181/2, Binnuru Complex Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District – 501 505

3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. Ltd., 6th floor, F-Block, Surya Towers S.P.Road, Secunderabad – 500 003. Policy No.61310231150200001226 valid from 17.07.2015 to 16.07.2016

4. Buddam Srinu S/o.B.Mallaiah aged 30years, Occ: Driver R/o. Narayanagiri Village, Pochampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

...Respondents.

Fair Copy 2 MVOP 631 of 2016

PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 of M.V.ACT

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 09.10.2023 in the presence of Sri.S.Narsimha, counsel for the Petitioners, Sri.N.Jagan Reddy, counsel for respondent No.1 & 2, Sri.P.Umapathi Rao, Advocate for Respondent no.3, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act 1988 and Rules 455 of APMV Rules 1989 claiming compensation for the death of deceased in a Road Traffic Accident.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that on 09.02.2016 at about 06:30pm hours the deceased and his villager went to Kothaguda

Village on a tractor bearing No. AP 29 AH 8213 and trolley bearing No. AP 24

AJ 8240 and unloaded the grass load, while returning to their village, on the way when they reached near SLC Engineering college at Piglipur village, the driver of the tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed road side tumor on that the deceased fell down on the road and the said tractor driver drove the vehicle oh him, as such, he sustained bleeding injuries and died on the spot. On a complaint, a case is registered under Cr.no. 131 of 2016 u/sec. 304-A of IPC by PS Hayathnagar.

2a)The deceased was aged 40yrs, hale and healthy, was doing as agriculture employee under Mr.R.Ravinder Reddy and earning a sum of

Rs.12,000/- per month. The petitioner No.1 is the wife, the petitioner No.2 to 4 are children and petitioner No.5 is the mother of the deceased. On his death, they lost love and affection. The respondent No.1 and 2 are owners, respondent No.3 is the insurer and respondent No.4 is the driver of the crime vehicle, tractor bearing No. AP 29 AH 8213 and trolley bearing No. AP 24 AJ 8240, thereby, all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners, hence, this petition for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

Fair Copy 3 MVOP 631 of 2016

3.Counter filed by respondent No.1 with adoption memo of respondent

No.2 that he is no way concern with the alleged accident, the respondent

No.1’s vehicle was never involved in the accident, he is not aware about the accident by its tractor as alleged by the petitioners, the said vehicle is falsely made involved. It is false that the deceased was aged 40years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- is excessive, not admissible hence, liable to be dismissed.

4. Counter filed by the respondent No.3 denying the averments of the petitioners and further contended that the manner of the accident and death of the accident is denied and petitioners are put to strict proof of the same and also doesn’t admit about the age, income of the deceased etc., The driver who drove the crime vehicle was not having any valid driving license, the claim is excessive and further the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation as the risk is not covered under the policy, hence prayed to dismiss.

5. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for enquiry:

a) Whether the pleaded accident that took place on 09.02.2016 at about 18.30hours near SLC, Engineering College at Piglipur Village Limits while the deceased Bugga Basawaiah and his villager M.Sreenu returning from Kothaguda village to their village i.e.,Narayanagiri, Pochampally Mandal on tractor bearing NO. AP 29 AH 8213 and trally No. AP 24 AJ 8240, the driver of tractor drove his vehicle rash and negligent manner and dashed road side tumor and resulted the deceased fell down on the road and said tractor driver drove the vehicle on him and got severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot.

b) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and from which of the respondent?

c) To what relief?

6.On behalf of the Petitioners, the petitioner No.1 herself examined as PW.1, One R.Rakesh Reddy was examined as PW.2, K.Naveen was

Fair Copy 4 MVOP 631 of 2016

examined as PW.3 and Exs.P1 to P12 are marked. On behalf of respondents, no one was examined but Ex.B1 is marked with consent.

7. Heard the arguments of both sides. Written arguments are filed by petitioners.

ISSUE NO.1

8.As the petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of

M.V.Act, they have to prove that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle, tractor bearing No. AP 29 AH 8213 and trally No. AP 24 AJ 8240 and deceased died.

9. To prove the case of the the petitioners, the petitioner no.1/wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1. It is her testimony that on the date of the accident, the deceased, her husband along with his villager namely Sreenu went to Kothaguda Village on tractor bearing No. AP 29 AH 8213 and trolley bearing No. AP 24 AJ 8240 unloaded the grass, while returning, when they reached near SLC Engineering college at Piglipur

Village, the driver of the tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the road side tumor, when the deceased fell down and driver drove the vehicle on him, as a result, he sustained injuries and died on the spot. In her evidence she got marked FIR, charge sheet, Inquest report and PME report as Ex.P1 to P4. Even during the course of the cross examination, it is her testimony that her husband was going on tractor at the time of the accident. She denied the suggestion that the deceased was not travelling in the tractor, wantedly the said tractor was shown and the respondent No.1 and 2 who are the owners of the said tractor and trailer are no way concern with the accident etc., but she denied it.

10. Apart, the evidence of PW.1, the petitioners also placed the evidence of one K.Naveen as PW.3. It is the testimony of PW.3 that while he

Fair Copy 5 MVOP 631 of 2016

was coming from Kothaguda side after attending his works, he noticed that the driver and another person were proceeding on the tractor, when they reached near SLC Engineering college at Piglipur Village, the driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed road side tumor, on that the deceased fell down on the road and the said tractor driver drove the vehicle on him, thereby he sustained injuries and died on the spot. Even in the cross examination also he stated that he has witnessed the accident, but however it is elicited in the cross examination that he doesn’t know who drove the tractor, crime vehicle and whether his name is mentioned in the charge sheet etc. Admittedly, as per the charge sheet which is filed under Ex.P2, he is not the eye-witness. Even if his evidence is kept aside, the documentary evidence placed by the petitioners to prove the accident and the death of the deceased in the accident.

11. In this case, it is the plea of the respondent No.1 & 2, owners of the crime vehicle that they are no way concern with the accident but a false case is registered by implicating the said vehicle. But the same is denied by

PW.1 as stated earlier. Furthermore, there is no material brought on record to prove the said contention of respondent No.1 & 2. Furthermore they also didn’t enter into witness box to depose the same. When a party to the suit doesn’t enter into the witness box to depose himself, and offers himself for cross examine him by other side a presumption would arise that a case setup by him is not a correct one. Thus, in this case, not only the documentary evidence but also no oral evidence in support of the contention of respondent

No.1 & 2.

12. Furthermore, in this case the documentary evidence placed by the petitioners clearly disprove the contention of the respondent No.1 & 2. In this case, the accident took place on 09.02.2016 at about 06:30pm hours. On the same day a complaint was lodged at about 09:30pm wherein it is

Fair Copy 6 MVOP 631 of 2016

categorically mentioned that the accident took place by the said crime vehicle. So also as per the charge sheet which was filed after due investigation, the accident took place by the crime vehicle, tractor bearing

No. AP 29 AH 8213 and trolley bearing No. AP 24 AJ 8240 and the driver of it drove it in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, by the evidence of PW1 and

PW3, coupled with Ex.P1 to P4, it is proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle, the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident.

Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners.

ISSUE no. 2:

13. As it is held in Issue no.1 that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., tractor bearing No. AP 29 AH 8213 and trally No. AP 24 AJ 8240, deceased died in the said accident, the petitioners being heirs are entitled for compensation. Though it is suggested to PW1 by the respondent no.1 and 2 that no material is placed to show the petitioners are the wife, children and mother of the deceased but in this case, the petitioners placed the aadhar Cards under Ex.P7 to P11, which clearly show that they are the wife, children and mother of the deceased.

14. Coming to the point of quantum of compensation, it is the evidence of PW1, wife of the deceased that the deceased was 40yrs on the date of accident. Apart from her testimony, in FIR, charge sheet, Inquest and

PME report under Ex.P1 to P4, it is mentioned the deceased was aged 40 years. No contra evidence is brought on record by the respondents to prove that the deceased was not 40 years on the date of accident. Hence, the age of the deceased is held as 40yrs. Thereby the suitable multiplier is ‘15’. (As per Sarala Verma case). Though, it is suggested to PW.1 by the respondent No.1 & 2 that no material is placed to show the petitioners are the wife, children and mother of the deceased but in this case, the petitioners

Fair Copy 7 MVOP 631 of 2016

placed the Aadhar cards under Ex.P7 to P11, which clearly show that they are the wife, children and mother of the deceased.

15. It is also the testimony of PW1 that the deceased was the agriculture employee under Mr.R.Ravinder Reddy and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. In support of her contention with regard to income she also filed

Ex.P6, original salary certificate. In this case, the petitioners also placed the evidence of son of R.Ravinder Reddy namely R.Rakesh Reddy as PW.2. It is his testimony that the deceased worked as agriculture employee under his father

R.Ravinder Reddy and he used to pay Rs.12,000/- per month. He also deposed that Ex.P6 was issued by his father. In this case, it is the contention of the petitioners and the evidence of PW.2 that on the date of evidence of

PW.2 the said R.Ravinder Reddy is no more, thereby the evidence of PW.2 is placed. But in the absence of any documentary evidence, the only evidence of PW.2 is not believable that the deceased was the agriculture employee and was getting Rs.12,000/- per month. Except Ex.P6 no other document i.e., any account books or any salary certificates, bank passbook, etc., are filed by the petitioners, thereby no reliance can be placed. However considering the age, income and ability to earn, year of accident i.e., 2016 etc., his income is hereby notionally assessed @ Rs.7,000/- per month. As deceased was aged about 40 years, he is entitled for future prospects of 30% (as per Pranay

Seth case), hence total comes to Rs.9,100/- (Rs.7,000/-+2,100/-).

16. As the petitioner was married person and family members are five, 1/4th to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses i.e.,2,275/-. If the said amount is deducted, it comes to Rs.6,825/- per month (Rs.9,100/- - 2,275/-). His annual income comes to Rs.81,900/- (Rs.6,825/- x 12). When it is multiplied with 15, it comes to Rs.12,28,500/- (Rs.81,900/- x

15) (Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

Fair Copy 8 MVOP 631 of 2016

another). Hence, the said amount is awarded to petitioners towards loss of earnings.

17. The petitioner No.1 is also entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium and the Petitioner No. 4 is hereby awarded an amount of Rs.44,000/- as parental consortium for loss of love, affection, care and companionship (Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nanu

Ram and others), the petitioners are also entitled an amount of 16,500/- towards loss of estate and another Sum of Rs. 16,500/- towards funeral expenses (NIC Vs. Pranay Sethi).

Thus, the aforesaid discussion would lead to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for the following amounts under various heads as follows:

1)Compensation for loss of life Rs.12,28,500-00/-

2) Spousal consortiumRs.44,000-00/-

3) Parental consortiumRs.44,000-00/-

3) Loss of EstateRs.16,500-00/-

4) Funeral ExpensesRs.16,500-00/- TOTAL Rs.13,49,500 -00 (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred only )

18. Coming to the liability of payment of compensation, Respondents no.1 and 2 are the owners of the crime vehicle, respondent No.4 is the driver of the crime vehicle and respondent no.3 is the insurer of the said vehicle.

Ex.B1 insurance policy shows the insurance to the crime vehicle, tractor bearing no. AP 29 AH 8213. The insurance period is from 17.07.2015 to 16.07.2016. The accident occurred on 09.02.2016. Thus, the Ex.B2 policy was in force as on the date of accident.

19. Coming to the liability, it is the contention of the respondent

No.3 that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having any valid driving license on the date of the accident. PW.1 also deposed in the cross examination that she doesn’t know whether the driver of the tractor was

Fair Copy 9 MVOP 631 of 2016

holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident. In this case, though the respondent No.4, driver appeared he didn’t file any counter. No material at present to show that the driver, respondent No.4 is having valid driving license on the date of the accident. The owners of the crime vehicle respondent No.1 & 2 also didn’t place any evidence in that regard. No doubt the burden lies on the respondent No.3 to prove that there is no driving license to the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of the accident. But in this case as per the charge sheet itself the respondent No.4, driver of the crime vehicle is not holding any valid driving license, the said charge sheet is filed after due investigation, thereby contra to the said contention no material is placed either by the owner or the driver of the crime vehicle.

Hence, this court is of the view that no driving license to the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident, thereby violation of policy terms.

20. However, in National Insurance Company Limited Vs,.

Swaran Singh reported in, 2004, ACJ (SC), it is held “Where the Driver did not possess the valid Driving License and there are breach of policy conditions etc., pay and recovery can be ordered in case of third party risk ”.

In Shamanna and another Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental

Insurance Company Limited and another, dated 8-2-2018, the principle of Swaran Singh’s case was reiterated.

In Parminder Singh vs. New India Insurance Co.Ltd., and others in Civil Appeal No. 5123 of 2019, it is held that “When the driver of the offending vehicle has no valid driving license at the time of accident, the insurance company is not liable, but it can be directed to pay the compensation to the claimant and recover the amount from owner and driver of the offending vehicle”.

21.It is also the contention of the respondent no.3, insurance company that crime vehicle is not meant for carrying the passengers, deceased proceeded on the vehicle along with driver, policy does not cover, thereby it

Fair Copy 10 MVOP 631 of 2016

is not liable to pay any compensation. It is not in dispute that Ex.B1 policy is in force in respect of crime vehicle. As per the complaint Ex.P1 and also the evidence of PW1, deceased was proceeding on the Tractor along with the driver, he drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the right side Tumor, then he fell down and the driver drove the vehicle over him, as a result, sustained injuries and died. So, it is not the case that the deceased was traveling in the trailer, but on the tractor. As per the decision reported in 2017 CJ (SC) 150 Supreme Court of India in case of

Manuara Khatun & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Singh & Ors, it is held that “In case of gratuitous passenger the Insurer can be directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimant therein and to recover the same from the Insured”.

22. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, this tribunal is of the view that the principle of “pay and recovery” can be invoked in the present case.

23.Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, this tribunal holds that the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.13,49,500/-(Rupees

Thirteen Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred only ) from respondent

No.1 & 2, owners of the crime vehicle, but payable by respondent No.3 at first instance being the insurer of the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 28 W 0645 along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and then at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1 & 2, owners of the crime vehicle.

Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.3

24.In the result, this petition is allowed in part granting compensation of Rs.13 ,49,500 /- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Five

Hundred only) with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, thereby the

Fair Copy 11 MVOP 631 of 2016

respondents No.1 to 4 being the owners, insurer and driver of the crime vehicle are liable to pay the said compensation amount.

However, the said compensation amount is payable by the

Respondent No.3, being the insurer of the crime vehicle in the first instance and shall deposit this amount into this court within a period of one month from today with a liberty to recover the same from respondents No.1 and 2 being the owners of the crime vehicle. In default, the Petitioners are entitled to proceed against the Respondents according to Law.

Out of the said compensation amount, the petitioner No.1 being the wife of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.4,49,500/- (Rupees four lakhs forty nine thousand five hundred only), petitioner no. 2 to 4 being the children of the deceased are awarded an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) each and the petitioner No.5 being the mother of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only).

On deposit of the said amount, the Petitioner no.1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw 50% of compensation amount with proportionate costs and interest and remaining 50% is directed to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any

Nationalized bank for a period of two years. Petitioner no. 5 is permitted to withdraw total compensation amount with proportionate costs and interest.

The compensation amount awarded to the petitioner no. 4, minor is directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank till the date of his attaining majority.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).

Office is directed to prepare decree after payment of court fee.

Dictated to Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 08th day of November, 2023.

FAC CHAIRMAN, M.V.A.C.T-CUM-

III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Fair Copy 12 MVOP 631 of 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONERS FOR THE RESPONDENTS

P.W.1 Bugga Bharathamma - NIL - P.W.2 R.Rakesh Reddy P.W.3 K.Naveen

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONERS

Ex.P1 : CC of FIR in crime No.131/2016 of PS Hayathnagar dated 09.02.2016 Ex.P2 : CC of Charge sheet dated 11.03.2016 Ex.P3 : CC of Inquest report dated 10.02.2016 Ex.P4 : CC of postmortem examination report dated 10.02.2016 Ex.P5 : CC of motor vehicle inspector report Ex.P6 : Original salary certificate issued by Mr.Ravinder Reddy dated 12.03.2016 Ex.P7 : Original Aadhar card of Bugga Bharatamma Ex.P8 : Original Aadhar card of Bugga Mahesh Ex.P9 : Original Aadhar card of Bugga Roja Ex.P10: Original Aadhar card of Bugga Pawan Kalyan Ex.P11: Original Aadhar card of Bugga Sukkamma Ex.P12: Death Certificate of R.Ravinder Reddy

FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1: Policy, dt: 17.07.2015.

FAC CHAIRMAN, M.V.A.C.T-CUM-

III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Fair Copy 13 MVOP 631 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: G. BHAVANI CHANDRA,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

FAC III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Wednesday, the 08th day of November, 2023

M.V.O.P.NO. 286 of 2017

Between:

1. Vavaldasu Navanitha @ Bhargavi, W/o. Late V. Srinivas, Aged about 37yrs, Occ: Housewife,

2. Vavaldasu Uday Kumar S/o. Late V. Srinivasu, Aged about 11yrs, Occ: Student,

3. Vavaldasu Hari Krishna, S/o. Late V. Srinivasu, Aged about 8yrs, Occ: Student,

4. Vavaldasu Annamma W/o. V. Yellappa, Aged about 61yrs, Occ: Nill

The petitioner No.2 and 3 are being minors represented by petitioner no.1 being natural mother.

All are R/o. H.No. 3-2-126, AMR Nagar, Bhongir village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. Presently residing at Plot No. 92,

Andhra Bank Colony, Hayathnagar, R. R. District. …...Petitioners

AND

1. G. Shankaraiah S/o. Istari, Aged about Major, Occ: Driver, R/o. 2-14, Mommaipally Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District. Driver of the vehicle auto bearing no. AP24 TC 0160.

2. S. Mallesh S/o. S. Ramulu, Aged about Major, Occ: Business R/o. H.No: 1-38, Rayagiri Village Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District.

Owner of vehicle auto bearing AP24 TC 0160.

3. Tata AIG General Insurance Co., Ltd., Represented by its Manager, 4th Floor, Block – A, My Home Tycoon, Lifestyle, Kudanbagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 16.

vide Policy No. 015609028900 Valid from 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2017

...Respondents.

PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 of M.V.ACT

This petition is coming before me on 16.10.2023 for final hearing in the presence of M/s. S. Narsimha, Advocate for the Petitioners and M/s.A. Padma Reddy, Advocate for Respondent no.3 and Respondents no.1 & 2 remained exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act 1983, Rules 475 of APMV Rules 1989 r/w Sec. 140 (c) MV Act 1988 claiming compensation for the death of deceased in a Road Accident.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that on 03.08.2016 deceased who was working in MSN Organic Pvt. Ltd., Bibi Nagar, went to company to attend duty, in the evening hours he boarded an Auto bearing no. AP24 TC 0160 at Bibi

Nagar bus stand, when he reached near Darga at Maruthi Showroom Chowrasta, the driver of the Auto drove it in rash and negligent manner and applied sudden break, thereby he fell down and sustained head injury, he was shifted to Area

Hospital, Bhonagir for treatment and the medical officer has referred to Gandhi

Hospital, but he died while undergoing treatment.

A case is registered under Cr.no. 222 of 2018 u/sec. 304-A of IPC by

PS Bhonagir.

The deceased was hale and healthy aged 33yrs, working in M/s. Jai

Hanuman Enterprises and earning Rs. 8,242/- per month, used to contribute the same to the family towards maintenance due to his sudden and untimely death, the petitioners lost the head of their family and also livelihood, petitioner no.1 lost her husband, petitioners no. 2 and 3 lost their father, petitioner no. 4 lost her son, the petitioners lost love and effection also. If he was alive, he would have future prospects, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the R1, driver of the Auto, Respondent no.2 is the owner and respondent no. 3 is the insurer, thereby they are jointly and severally liable for compensation.

3. Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the averments of the petition and further contended that, the driver of the crime vehicle is not having valid driving license at the time of alleged accident, it does not admit that the deceased was private employee and was earning Rs.8242/- per moht and aged 36yrs, etc., further also not admitting the manner of accident as mentioned by the petitioner, petitioners should be put to strict proof of the same. The liability is restricted to his proof, terms and conditions provided that not violated any conditions, owner has not issued any notice about the alleged accident. It is the duty of the owner to furnish numbers of the policy, time, date, time place of the accident and thereby not liable. The compensation claimed is excessive, hence prayed to dismiss.

4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for enquiry:

1. Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Auto bearing no. AP24 TC 0160 on 03.08.2016 at 7:30PM near darga at Maruthi Showroom Chowrasta, Bhongir, causing death of the deceased?

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

3. To what relief?

5. On behalf of the Petitioners, PW1 to PW4 are examined and Exs.A1 to A8 are marked. Ex.B1 to B5 are marked on behalf of respondent no.3 with consent.

6. Heard arguments of both sides.

ISSUE NO.1

7. As the petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of

M.V.Act, they have to prove that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle bearing No. AP21 TC 0160 and deceased died.

8. To prove the case of the the petitioners, petitioner no.1 is examined as PW1. It is the testimony of PW1 that 03.08.2016 deceased who was working in

MSN Organic Pvt. Ltd., Bibi Nagar, went to company to attend duty, in the evening hours he boarded an Auto bearing no. AP24 TC 0160 at Bibi Nagar bus stand, when he reached near Darga at Maruthi Showroom Chowrasta, the driver of the

Auto drove it in rash and negligent manner and applied sudden break, thereby he fell down and sustained head injury in the date of accident and died while undergoing treatment. In her evidence, she got marked CC of the FIR with complaint, charge sheet, Inquest report and PME report under Ex.A1 to A4.

9. Further, petitioners also examined V. Raju as PW2, his testimony

before this court is that on 03.08.2016 at about 7:30PM he noticed driver of one

auto bearing no. AP24 TC 0160 drove it in rash and negligent manner and applied sudden break, due to which the deceased fell down from the auto and sustained bleeding injuries on head and all over the body and was shifted to hospital, further he came to know that the said person died due to the said injuries. It is his categorical evidence in the cross examination that he was standing by the side of the road, at the time of accident. He is the eye witness as per the charge sheet under Ex.A2, thereby it cannot be said that he is a planted witness.

10. In this case, the respondent No.3 examined manager legal as RW.1.

His evidence is in tune with his counter but not specifically denied about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. As stated earlier, nothing could be elicited in cross of PW.1, PW.2 in that regard.

11. Apart from the oral testimony as stated above, the petitioners also placed documentary evidence under Ex.A1 and A2. In Ex.A1, FIR which was given immediately after the accident, it is categorically mentioned the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.

So also in Ex.A2 the charge sheet, which was filed after due investigation it is mentioned that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.

12. The petitioners also placed inquest panchanama, Ex.A4 and postmortem examination report under Ex.A5 which show deceased died due to accidental injuries.

13. Thus by, the evidence of PW1 and PW3 coupled with Ex.A1 to A5 it is proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle bearing no. AP24 TC 0160 and in said accident, the deceased sustained injury and died.

Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.

ISSUE no. 2:

14. As it is held in Issue no.1 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e.,Auto bearing No. AP21 TC 0160 deceased died in the said accident, the petitioners being wife, children and mother of the deceased are entitled for compensation.

15.It is the testimony of PW1 that on the date of accident, the deceased was 33yrs old, the same is also mentioned in his pleadings and also in her chief affidavit. In this case, the petitioners did not place any documentary evidence to show that he was 33yrs old. Even in the cross examination also she admitted that she has not filed any document to show with regard to the age of the deceased, however, she denied the suggestion that he was 40yrs by the time of accident. No material is placed on record by the respondents to prove he was 40yrs.

16.But at the same time, it is to be noted here that in the complaint lodged immediately on the next day of the accident, the brother-in-law of the deceased has shown the age of the deceased as 36yrs. The same is also mentioned in inquest report and PME report, thereby no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW1 that the deceased was aged 33yrs. Considering the material brought on record as discussed above, the age of the deceased is hereby considered as 36yrs, thereby the multiplier is 15.

17. It is the testimony of PW1 that the deceased was working in MSN organics as helper and he used to earn Rs. 8242/- per month. IN support of the same, she got marked Ex.A7 salary certificate issued by Jai Hanuman Enterprises.

In the cross examination she admitted that she has not filed any appointment letter of her husband to show that he worked in MSN Organics. In this case, the petitioners placed the evidence of PW2 and PW4 to prove the employment of the deceased and his income.

18. It is the testimony of PW2 that he is the proprietor of Jai Hanuman

Enterprises, they are the man power suppliers, deceased was engaged by them at

MSN Organics as helper for which they paid salary of Rs.8,242/- per month, in that regard, he issued Ex.A7 salary Certificate. During the course of cross examination, it is elicited that he did not file any document, there is no agreement of supply of man power to MSN Organics Pvt. Ltd.. He further admitted that he has not filed any proof about date of joining of the deceased and also no service records.

19.In this case, PW4 was summoned and it is his testimony that he is working as Deputy Manager, HR in MSN Organics Pvt. Ltd., deceased was working in their Organics as a contract labour, their MSN Organics gave contract to Jai

Hanuman Enterprises, deceased was employed through Jai Hanuman Enterprises and the salary was paid by the contractor. During the course of cross examination it is elicited that he did not file any document to show that deceased worked in

MSN Organics for two years. Further he admitted he did not file any contract between Jai Hanuman Enterprises and MSN Organics.

20.Thus, in this case though PW2 and PW4 are examined, only their oral evidence is available on record as they did not come up with any documentary evidence. If really there is a contract agreement between Jai Hanuman Enterprises and MSN Enterprises, the Jai Hanuman Enterprises engaged the deceased and supplied the deceased as helper in MSN Organics and paid salary etc., there would have been the documentary evidence but not filed. No documents such as attendance register, account books, bank passbooks etc., are filed. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the only oral testimony of PW2 and PW4 is no way helpful and cannot be said that the deceased was a helper and earning

Rs.8,242/- per month.

21. However considering the age, ability to work, date of accident that took place in the year 2016 etc., his income is hereby notionally assessed @

Rs.7,000/- per month. As deceased was aged about 36 years, he is entitled for future prospects of 40% (as per Pranay Seth case), hence total comes to

Rs.9,800/- (Rs.7,000 + 2,800/-)

22. As the family members are four in number, ¼th to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses i.e., Rs.2,450/- (Rs.9800 x 1/4). If the said amount is deducted, balance comes to Rs.7,350/- per month (Rs.9,800 – 2,450). Thus, annual income comes to Rs.88,200/-. When it is multiplied with 15, it comes to Rs.13,23,000/- (Rs.7,350 x 12 x 18) (Sarla Verma and others Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation and another). The said amount is awarded to petitioner towards loss of earnings.

23. Further, the petitioner no.1 is also entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium and the Petitioner No. 2 & 3 are hereby awarded an amount of Rs.44,000/- each as consortium for loss of love, affection, care and companionship as parental consortium (Magma General Insurance Company

Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram and others). The petitioners are entitled for an amount of 16,500/- towards loss of estate and another sum of Rs. 16,500/- towards funeral expenses (NIC Vs. Pranay Sethi). Petitioner no.4 is mother of deceased, she is no more and the same is evident from Ex.A8.

Thus, the aforesaid discussion would lead to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the following amounts under various heads as follows:

1)Compensation for loss of life Rs.13,23,000-00/-

2) Spousal consortiumRs.44,000-00/-

3) Parental consortiumRs.88,000-00/-

3) Loss of EstateRs.16,500-00/-

4) Funeral ExpensesRs.16,500-00/- TOTAL Rs.14,88,000-00 (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Only)

24. Coming to the liability of payment of compensation, it is the contention of the respondent no.3 that the driver of the crime vehicle does not have any valid driving license. On this the burden lies on the respondent No.3. The said plea is taken in counter, it is not his evidence. In Addition to this, in the charge sheet under Ex.A2 which was filed after due investigation, does not show that the driver is not having a valid driving license. Furthermore, it is required to mention here that in the MVI Report under Ex.A6 it is categorically mentioned that the driver of the crime vehicle Respondent no.1 was having valid driving license on the date of accident. Thereby the contention of the respondent no.3 is not correct.

25. Admittedly, the respondent no.3 filed Ex.B1, RW1 also admitted that the police was in force on the date of accident and further contended that it contains third party liability. So the Respondents no. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation awarded amount along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.4

26.In the result, this petition is allowed in part granting compensation of

Rs. 14,88,000 /-(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount. The said compensation amount is payable by the

Respondent No.2, being insurer.

It shall deposit this amount into this Court within a period of one month from today. In default, the Petitioners are entitled to proceed against the

Respondents according to Law.

Petitioner no.1 being the wife of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.8,88,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand only), petitioners no.

2 and 3 being children of the deceased are awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only). Petitioner No.4 is no more.

On deposit of the said amount, the petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw 50% of compensation amount with proportionate costs and interest and remaining 50% is directed to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized bank for a period of two years. The compensation amount of the petitioner no.2 & 3, minors is directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank till the date of their attaining majority.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).

Office is directed to prepare decree, after payment of court fee.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I), transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of November, 2023.

FAC CHAIRMAN, MACT - CUM -

III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONERFOR THE RESPONDENTS

P.W.1 V. Navanitha @ Bhargavi RW1 : M. Eswara Reddy P.W.2 A. Sai Kumar P.W.3: V.Raju @ Vomdas Raju P.W.4:B. Venkat Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONER

Ex.A.1CC of FIR in Cr.no. 222 of 2016 PS Bhongir Ex.A.2CC of Charge sheet Ex.A.3CC of Inquest of V. Srinivas Ex.A.4CC of PME of V. Srinivas Ex.A.5CC of Scene of offence and rough sketch Ex.A.6Cc of MVI report Ex.A.7Original Salary certificate issued by Jai Hanuman Enterprises Ex.A.8Original Death Certificate of Petitioner no.4

FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1: Attested Copy of Policy Ex.B2: Office copy of legal notice to owner dt. 23.05.2017 Ex.B3: Office copy of legal notice to owner dt. 27.07.2018 Ex.B4: Postal receipts dt. 27.07.2018 Ex.B5: Postal acknowledgments of owner and SHO of Bhongir

FAC CHAIRMAN, M.V.A.C.T-CUM-

III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

fair MVOP 33 of 2019 1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: G. BHAVANI CHANDRA,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Tuesday, the 23rd day of April, 2024

M.V.O.P.NO. 33 of 2019

Between:

1. P. Venkatesh S/o. Pentaiah, Aged about 45yrs, Occ: Auto Driver

2. P. Chandrakala W/o. P. Venkatesh, Aged about 40yrs, Occ: Housewife,

3. P. Keerthi D/o. P. Venkatesh, Aged about 20yrs, Occ: Student.

All are R/o. Flat no. 11-20-25/107, ShanthanApts,HudaComplex, Kothapet, Saroornagar, R. R. District.

…...Petitioners

AND

1. Veera Ram S/o. Gena Ram, Aged about Major, Occ: Owner of the crime vehicle bearing no. RJ04 GA 7167, R/o. Leelsar The Chohtan District, Barmer, Rajasthan.

2. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, III Floor, Kundan Estates, near HotelHayaInternationalAbids, Hyderabad – 500 001.

Policy No. 106009/31/19/000336, Policy valid from 03.05.2018 to 02.05.2019

3. Kanwara Ram S/o. Dharma Rao, Aged Major, Occ: Driver of the Crime vehicle bearing no. RJ04 GA 7167 R/o. Leelsar The Ghohtan District, Barmer, Rajasthan – 344 001.

...Respondents.

PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 of M.V.ACT

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 01.04.2024 in the presence of M/s. T. Sathaiah, Advocate for the Petitioners and M/s.P. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for Respondent no.2, and Respondents no.1 and 3 fair MVOP 33 of 2019 2 remained exparte, and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1. This petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act 1983, Rules 455 of APMV Rules 1989 r/w Sec. 140 MV Act 1989 claiming compensation for the death of deceased in a Road Accident.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that on 22.07.2018 the deceased along with his relative P. Prasad Kumar left Hyderabad on his Activa bearing No. TS0B FC 6377, in the meanwhile on the way of Hyderabad-Kurnool

NH.44 in the limits of Rajapur one container vehicle bearing no. RJ04 GA 7167 was hit from back side, thereby pillion rider and deceased fell down on the road and died on the spot, the police registered a case in Cr.no. 108 of 2018 for the offences u/sec. 304-A IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle.

The deceased was hale and healthy, aged 18yrs, and was studying degree first year at the time of accident, further doing private job i.e., taking home tutions and earning monthly an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month and contributing the same to the family, due to the sudden death of the deceased, the family lost their love and affection and also facing mental agony. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the container bearing no. RJ04 GA 7167, the respondent no.1 is the registered owner of the said vehicle, validly insured with the respondent no.2, Respondent no.3 is the driver of the said vehicle, thereby they all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, hence the petition.

3. Counter filed by the respondent no.2 denying the averments of the petition and further contended that the respondent no.2 not admitting the manner of the accident and also the deceased was proceeding on motorcycle fair MVOP 33 of 2019 3 along with another and the driver of the container bearing no. RJ04 GA 7167 hit from behind and thereby he died. The accident not occurred due to the driving of the driver of the container, but only due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Activa, thereby respondent no.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.

The respondent no.2 is not aware about the criminal proceedings, respondent no.1 has not informed about the accident as required, compensation claimed is excessive, hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for enquiry:

1. a) Whether the accident occurred was due to rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent no.3? Or

b) Whether the accident occurred on account of contributory negligence on the part of rider of Activa 3G scooty motorcycle No. TS0B FC 6377 namely Prasad?

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

3. To what relief?

5. On behalf of the Petitioners, PW1 to PW3 are examined, Exs.A1 to A8 are marked. No one is examined on behalf of respondents, but Ex.B1 is marked with consent.

6. Heard the arguments of both sides. Written Arguments also filed by petitioner.

ISSUE NO.1(a)

7. As the petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of

M.V.Act, they have to prove that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle container bearing No. RJ04 GA 7167 and deceased died.

fair MVOP 33 of 2019 4

8. To prove the case of the the petitioners, petitioner no.1, father of the deceased is examined himself as PW1. It is his testimony that on the date of accident, the deceased along with his relative was proceeding on his Activa bearing No. TS0B FC 6377, meanwhile driver of the crime vehicle container bearing no. RJ04 GA 7167 hit from backside, thereby he fell down and died on the spot. In his evidence he got marked FIR, complaint, Charge Sheet, panchanama,

MVI report, PME report, Inquest report etc., under Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. It is elicited in the cross examination that he is not an eye witness to the accident. It is not at all his evidence that he is an eye witness to the accident. He has categorically denied suggestion that the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle bearing no. RJ04 GA 7167, it was to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Activa etc.,.

9. In this case, the petitioners also examined one Sirigay Naresh as

PW3. It is his testimony that on the date of the accident, the deceased was proceeding along with another on Activa, when they reached the bridge in the limits of Rajapur Village, the container, crime vehicle bearing no. RJ04 GA 7167 came from backside in rash and negligent manner in high speed without following the traffic rules and dashed the Activa from backside, thereby the pillion rider, deceased died there itself. Even in the cross examination also he deposed that he is a witness to the accident. He categorically denied the suggestion that he is not a witness to the accident. No doubt, his name is not shown in the charge sheet but he categorically deposed that he is a witness to the accident. Further it is his evidence that the deceased belongs to Donur village, thereby he stated that they were proceeding to the said village and the other employees also made a call to the police informing the accident.

10. Further, in this case the petitioner also placed documentary evidence apart from oral evidence. In Ex.P1 complaint which is given immediately after the fair MVOP 33 of 2019 5 accident, it is clearly mentioned that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the container bearing no. RJ04 GA 7167 and the deceased along with another was proceeding on the Activa which was hit from back side by the driver of the crime vehicle. In similar way as per Ex.A2 charge sheet which is filed after due investigation the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Further Ex.A3 panchanama shows about the manner of the accident and caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the container which was proceeding in same direction. As per Ex.A4 MVI Report, accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle.

11. In this case, though the respondent no.2 in the counter denied the manner of the accident, no material evidence is brought on record. No one is examined to prove the said contention, nothing is also elicited in the cross examination of PW1 and PW3. Absolutely there is no evidence at all in support of its version that there is a contributory negligence. Further as stated earlier, the oral testimony of PW1 and PW3 coupled with documentary evidence placed by the petitioner clearly proves due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle bearing no. RJ04 GA 7167, the accident occurred.

Thus, this issue no.1(a) & 1(b) are decided in favour of the petitioners.

ISSUE no.2:

12. As it is held in Issue no.1 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent no. 1/driver of the crime vehicle bearing no.

RJ04 GA 7167, deceased sustained injuries and died in the said accident, the petitioners being parents and sister are entitled for compensation.

fair MVOP 33 of 2019 6

13. Coming to the point of quantum of compensation, it is the testimony of PW1, father of the deceased that at the time of accident, the age of his son was 18yrs old. As per the complaint given at earlier stage, Ex.A1 age of deceased is shown as 18yrs, further Ex.A7 Aadhar card also shows that at the time of accident, the deceased was 18yrs old. (Sarla Verma’s case).

14. It is further testimony of PW1 that on the date of accident, the deceased was studying degree first year, further also taking private tutions, thereby earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Admittedly in this case no documentary evidence is placed to show that he was a student as on the date of accident, the same is also admitted by PW1 in the cross examination. Further if really the deceased was studying first year after completion of intermediate, the petitioners could have filed documentary evidence, such as educational certificates, but failed for the reasons best known to them. In the absence of the same it cannot be said that he is a student. In the similar way, though the petitioners are contending that he was taking private tutions and earning Rs.15,000/- per month.

For that also no material is placed and the same is also admitted by PW1. In the absence of any material evidence in that regard, it cannot be said that he is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, considering the age, he was hale and healthy, and further the year of the accident that took place in the year 2018, this court is of the view that notional income can be assessed as Rs.8,000/- per month.

15. As the deceased was aged 18 on the date of the accident, the petitioners are entitled for future prospects of 40% (as per Pranay Sethi’s case). Hence, the total income comes to Rs.11,200/- per month (Rs.8,000/- + 3,200(40%)). As the deceased was unmarried, ½ is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses i.e., Rs. 5,600/- (Rs.11,200 x ½) (As per Sarla

Verma case). So, his balance income comes to Rs. 5,600/- per month fair MVOP 33 of 2019 7 (Rs.11,200 – Rs.5,600) then his annual income comes to Rs. 67,200/- (Rs. 5600 x 12), when multiplied with 18, it comes to Rs. 12,09,600/- (Rs.67,200/- x 18) (Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another).

The said amount is awarded to petitioner towards loss of earnings.

16. Further, the petitioners are also entitled for a sum of

Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and another Rs. 16,500/- towards funeral expenses. The petitioners no.1 and 2 being parents of deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs. 88,000/- (Rs.44,000/- each) towards filial consortium as the death of their son caused great shock and agony to them (Magma General Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Nanuram Chuhru).

Thus, the aforesaid discussion would lead to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for the following amounts under various heads as follows:

1)Compensation for loss of life Rs. 12,09,600-00

2) Filial consortium Rs. 88,000-00

3) Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500-00

4) Funeral ExpensesRs. 16,500-00 TOTAL Rs. 13,30,600-00 (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Only)

17. Coming to the liability of payment of compensation, Respondent no.1 is owner, Respondent no. 2 is the insurer, Respondent no.3 is the driver of the crime vehicle. Ex.B1, insurance policy shows the period of insurance from 03.05.2018 to midnight of 03.05.2019 with Respondent no.2 for the crime vehicle container bearing no. RJ04 GA 7167. The accident occurred on 22.07.2018. So policy was in existence on the date of accident. Thus the respondents no.1 being owner of crime vehicle, and respondent no.2 being insurer of the said vehicle and respondent no.3 being the driver of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay said compensation amount along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

fair MVOP 33 of 2019 8

ISSUE NO.4

18. In the result, this petition is allowed in part granting compensation of

Rs. 13,30,600 -(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Only) with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount. The said compensation amount is payable by the

Respondents No.2, being the insurer of the crime vehicle.

It shall deposit this amount into this Court within a period of one month from today. In default, the Petitioners are entitled to proceed against the

Respondents according to Law.

Petitioner no.1 being father is entitled for Rs. 4,30,600/- (Rupees Four

Lakhs Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Only) and Petitioner no.2 being the mother of deceased is awarded an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only). The petitioner no.3 being sister of the deceased is awarded an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only).

On deposit of the said amount, the Petitioners no.1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw 50% of compensation amount with proportionate costs and interest and remaining 50% is directed to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized bank for a period of two years.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).

Office is directed to prepare the decree after payment of court fee.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I), transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2024.

CHAIRMAN, MACT - CUM -

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

fair MVOP 33 of 2019 9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONER FOR THE RESPONDENTS

PW1 : P. Venkatesh None PW2 : Kavali Ramakrishna PW3 : Sirigay Naresh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONER

Ex.A.1CC of FIR along with complaint dt. 22.07.2018 Ex.A.2CC of Charge Sheet dt. 20.08.2018 Ex.A.3CC of Scene of offence panchanama dt. 22.07.2018 Ex.A.4CC of MVI Report dt. 24.07.2018 Ex.A.5CC of PME report dt. 22.07.2018 Ex.A.6CC of Inquest report dt. 22.07.2018 Ex.A.7Notarized Aadhar Card of the petitioners Ex.A.8Notarized Ration Card

FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1: True Copy of Policy

CHAIRMAN, M.V.A.C.T-CUM-

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

fair MVOP 33 of 2019 10

MVOP no.33 of 2019

23.04.2024

Notice affixed on notice board. Order pronounced (VSO) In the result, this petition is allowed in part granting compensation of Rs. 13,30,600 -(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Only) with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount. The said compensation amount is payable by the Respondents No.2, being the insurer of the crime vehicle. It shall deposit this amount into this Court within a period of one month from today. In default, the Petitioners are entitled to proceed against the Respondents according to Law. Petitioner no.1 being father is entitled for Rs. 4,30,600/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Only) and Petitioner no.2 being the mother of deceased is awarded an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only). The petitioner no.3 being sister of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only). On deposit of the said amount, the Petitioners no.1 to 3are permitted to withdraw 50% of compensationamountwith proportionate costs and interest and remaining 50% is directed to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized bank for a period of two years. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). Office is directed to prepare the decree after payment of court fee..

II ADJ

fair MVOP 33 of 2019 11

PO is on EL. For orders call on 04.09.2023. IIADJ