Sri K Ajitha Simha Rao

CHIEF JUDGE

HYD, City Civil Court Complex · Hyderabad · Telangana

SRI K AJITHA SIMHA RAO, CHIEF JUDGE, is posted at HYD, City Civil Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. 82 court orders on record since 2019. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OP, OS, AS cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OP/1921/2014

Smt. K. Vijaya vs Mr. Abdul Khadar Mohammed

13 Feb 2020

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE – CUM MOTOR

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD

THURSDAY DATED THIS THE 13 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

PRESENT: SRI K.AJITA SIMHA RAO,

II Additional Chief Judge

M.V.O.P.No.1921 of 2014

Between:

1. K. Vijaya W/o K. Venkataiah, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Housewife.

2. K. Venkataiah, S/o K. Komuraiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Nil.

3. K. Sunitha D/o K. Venkataiah, Aged about 14 years, Occ:Student. (The petitioner No.3 is minor being represented by her natural guardian/father, the petitioner No.2) All are presently R/o H.No.194220/2/D, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.…Petitioners

And

1. Abdul Khadar Mohammed S/o Abdul Sattar, aged: Major, Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258, R/o H.No.31127, Asif Pura, Sirisilla, Karim Nagar District.

2. United India Insurance Company Limited, T.P Claim Hub, Rep by Its Manager HRO Posnett Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Church Buildi;ng, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

Policy No.0523003113P106378790 Valid from 03.01.2014 to 02.01.2015 … Respondents

Sub:Claim Petition filed U/Sec 166 of M.V Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/ for the death of K. Anitha, in a motor vehicle accident on 09062014.

This Original Petition coming on this day before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri G. Narender Reddy,

Advocate for the Petitioners and Respondent No.1 remained exparte and of Sri M. Satish Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and upon perusing the material on record and having finally stood over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:

2 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

AWARD

1.This is an application filed U/Sec 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.,1988 (for short “the Act”) to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/ on account of death of K. Anitha who died in a motor vehicle accident on 09062014.

2. Precisely, as per the contents of petition, it is the case of the petitioners that Petitioner No.1 is the mother, petitioner No.2 is the father and petitioner No.3 is the unmarried sister of K. Anitha, (herein after referred to as “deceased”) who died in a motor accident on 09.06.2014 at 1400 hours.

3.It is further case of the petitioners that on 09.06.2014 at about 1400 hours the deceased along with her husband and inlaws and other near relatives were proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP36Y9687 from

Karimnagar towards Vemulawada for Darshan on the way they reached

Kamareddy and Karimnagar Road, near Arepally Village, Vemulawada

Mandal, Karimnagar District and at that time the lorry bearing No.AP 15Y3258 came from Vemulawada towards Karimnagar in a rash and negligent manner in high speed came in extreme right side and dashed to the auto. Due to which, the auto was crushed underneath of lorry resulting in the death of the deceased and her family members sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

4.It is further case of the petitioners that P.S. Vemulawada,

Karimnagar District registered a case in Crime No.165/2014 under

Section 304A of IPC against the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP15Y

3 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

3258 alleging that he drove the lorry in negligent manner and caused the accident.

5.It is further case of the petitioner that the deceased was a labour and earning Rs.9,000/ per month (Rs.300/ per day) and she used to contribute the same to her family and petitioners performed the marriage of the deceased in the month of May, 2014 and they borrowed more than Rs.3,00,000/ from money lenders to perform her marriage and the petitioner No.2 is the father of the deceased who is suffering with lot of medical problems and petitioner No.3 is a minor unmarried sister of the deceased and pursuing her studies and she is not earning member and totally dependent on the income of the deceased and all are legal heirs and all of them are entitled for compensation.

6.It is further case of the petitioners that, respondent No.1 is owner of the lorry bearing No. AP15Y3258 and respondent No.2 is the insurer and as such both are jointly liable to pay the compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/ with interest @ 12% from the date of accident till realisation with costs.

7.The Respondent No.1 remained exparte.

8.Respondent No.2 filed counter interalia contending that it denies that the deceased and the petitioners were resident of Hyderabad. It denies the age and avocation of the earnings of the deceased. It is further contended by respondent that it does not aware of the registration of the case by Police Vemulawada, Karimnagar District and that it does not admit the narration made in the petition that the accident took place due to negligent driving of the driver of the lorry

4 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

bearing No. AP15Y3258 proceeding from Vemulawada towards

Karimnagar in a rash and negligent manner caused the accident and due to which the deceased and others sustained injuries and died.

9.It is further contended by the respondent that the petitioners are not legal representatives of the deceased to claim any compensation against the respondents and that they are not depended upon the income of the deceased. They are not treated as legal representatives or dependents to claim compensation. There was a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP36Y9687 and further that the auto was carrying excessive passengers than permitted and contributed to the alleged accident. Further the driver of the auto was not having valid and effective license. Therefore, the owner of the auto is also necessary and proper party to the petition. They prayed for dismissal of the petition.

10.The respondent No.2 filed additional counter interalia contending that the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258 was charged under

Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act for driving the vehicle in question in a drunken condition and as such the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation as the owner of the lorry violated the terms of the condition of the policy and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

11.On rival contentions, the following issues were framed by my predecessor:

1)Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 15Y 3258 causing death of K. Anitha ?

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

5 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

3)To what relief ?

12.On behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 herself examined as

PW1, she marked Exs.A1 to A9. She also examined PW2 who is eye witness to the accident.

13.On behalf of the contesting respondent No.2, RW1 to RW3 examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 marked.

14.Heard both sides. Written arguments filed by respondent No.2

15.ISSUE NO.1:

Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 15Y 3258 causing death of K. Anitha ?

It is the simple case of the petitioner that, the deceased who was travelling in an auto met with an accident due to the offending vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258 and died on the spot.

16.It is the contention of the respondent No.2 in the counter that the accident has not taken due to the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 15Y 3258 and driver of the auto also contributed and he was negligent and as such the owner of the auto is necessary party to the petition and prayed for the dismissal of the petition against it.

17.To prove case, the petitioner No.1 herself examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. On the other hand, the respondents also examined RW1 to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was in drunken condition and caused the accident. They got marked Ex.X1 and Ex.X2.

6 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

18.It is an admitted fact that the PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident. The PW1 came to know about the death. PW1 produced

Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 to show that accident took place due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle lorry bearing No. AP 15Y 3258. Ex.A1 is the First Information Report lodged on 09.06.2014 alleging that the driver of the offending vehicle drove it in negligent manner and caused the accident. Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 the inquest and post mortem examination report would reveal that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. Ex.A5 is the scene of offence Panchnama and Ex.A4 is the charge sheet. On plain reading of the charge sheet it is alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was in a drunken condition and that he was charged for the offence under Section 185 of

Motor Vehicles Act.

19.The PW2 is an eye witness to the accident. PW2 categorically stated in which manner the accident took place. Considering the contents of Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 it is clear that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle on 09.06.2014.

20.It is seriously contended by the counsel for the respondent in his oral arguments and also written arguments that Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 would clearly reveal that the driver was under influence of Alcohol as the blood samples of the driver was taken during the course of investigation and sent to FSL. The RW1, who is the SubInspector of

Police conducted investigation, was examined to prove that the driver was under influence of the alcohol at the time of accident and therefore

7 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

the policy conditions were violated to refuse granting of award of compensation against the respondent No.2.

21. On deeply peeping into the charge sheet under Ex.A4, the accident took place on 09.06.2014 at 2.00 p.m. The accused was taken in custody on 12.06.2014. The RW3 who was examined to prove Ex.X2 stated that sample was collected on 16.06.2014. It is not the case of the respondents that soon after the accident the driver was arrested on 09.06.2014 and that blood samples were collected and they were sent to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was under influence of alcohol. Therefore, the testimonies of PW1 , RW1 and RW3, documents under Ex.A4 and Ex.X2 would clearly reveal that the driver of the offending vehicle was not at all in the custody of Police on 09.06.2014 to send his blood samples to the laboratory to prove that he was under influence of alcohol and drove the vehicle in a negligent manner.

22.Further contention raised in the counter that owner of the auto was not made party to the petition as there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. Absolutely, there is no legal evidence putforth by the respondent No.2. To the contrary, the contents of Ex.A4 would clearly show that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. Therefore, its contention is not tenable under the law. For the foregoing discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the petitioners could prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry bearing No. AP 15Y 3258 and caused the accident and due to which the deceased died on the spot.

I hold this issue in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

8 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

Issue No.2: “Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and against whom ? ”

23.Entitlement: It is the case of the Petitioners that, they are legal representatives of deceased. It is pleaded in the petition that, petitioner

No.1 and petitioner No.2 are parents and petitioner No.3 is unmarried sister of deceased. It is serious contention made in the counter that the petitioners are not at all legal representatives or dependents of the deceased.

24.The PW1 entered into witness box and stated her relationship with the deceased and relationship of other petitioners. Admittedly, in the accident in question 10 persons died. It appears that one of the family and other family members died. The claim of the petitioner that they are dependent on the deceased Anitha. She was married. The petitioners mentioned their present address at Hyderabad. They have not produced their Aadhar Cards or other documents evidencing that they were residing with the deceased under the same roof or atleast they were dependent on the earnings of the deceased. It is an admitted fact that deceased, her husband, died in the same accident. The family of deceased was a separate family. It is difficult to accept the petitioners are dependents on the earnings of the deceased. In the absence of any clinical evidence on record, it is required to negate the contention of the petitioners that they are the legal representatives or dependents of the deceased.

9 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

25.The word ‘Legal Representatives’ was not defined under the Act.

The same is defined under Section 2(11) of Code of CPC which is reproduced hereunder:

Legal Representative:

Legal representative means a person, who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued:

They are required to putforth some acceptable evidence to show that they were representatives or dependents.

26.The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a reported decision in between the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation,

Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Others AIR 1987 SC

1690.

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the brother of the deceased is the legal representative and entitled to claim compensation on the principles of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

(b)He also relied upon the reported decision in between the

Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Another vs. United India

Insurance and Another. Etc., Wherein a brother who renounced the world and rendering services and receives salary and all subsidies etc, goes into the common purse and when such brother died in a Motor Vehicle Accident and the Society is entitled to maintain the petitioner U/S 166 of the Act for awarding compensation.”

(c)The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a reported decision that in between the Divisional Manager, New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Selvi and others 2014 ACJ 293

“wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that sister and

10 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

brother of their bachelor who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident and his parents were also not alive or entitled for compensation as on the basis of deposition the sister of the deceased residing with them that they were dependent on his income.”

(d)The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the reported decision in between P.S. Somanathan and others v. District

Insurance Officer and another 2011 ACJ 737 of Hon’ble Apex

Court wherein the hon’ble Apex Court held Sister, mother , brother and sister are claimants of the deceased who was looking after entire family were entitled for compensation and sister cannot be kept out of consideration.

He also relied upon reported decision in between Manohar

Maruti Ghule and another v. Dang Sanjeev and others 2014

ACJ 717 wherein that the parents of married daughter are entitled for compensation when her husband was no more living.

He also relied upon a reported decision that in between A.

Maddaiah and others v. Viswanath and another 2014 ACJ

701 of Andhra Pradesh High Court that major sons are also entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency.

There is no quarrel with the legal preposition enunciated in the above said judgments.

27.Here is the case before this Tribunal that the petitioners No.1 and 2 are parents and petitioner No.3 is unmarried sister of deceased.

Since deceased was already married and separately residing with her husband, they failed to produce any evidence to show that they were dependent on the exclusive income of the deceased. They also failed to establish the relationship. They also failed to prove that they were

11 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

residing with the deceased as on the date of the accident under the same roof. They also failed to disclose their particulars as on the date of accident by producing Aadhar cards. Under law parentsinlaw and sisterinlaw are not entitled to any compensation.

28.In the absence of such evidence and it is an admitted fact the deceased along with her husband died in the same accident and it cannot be said that the petitioners are the dependents of the deceased.

29.The learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.2 fairly submitted that though the petitioners are not dependents on the deceased as legal representatives entitled for the compensation of

Rs.50,000/ on account under head “No Fault Liability”.

30.He invited the attention of this Tribunal to the reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in betweenManjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd. 2007 (3) ALD 55 (SC) “Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held at Paras 14, 15 and 16 as under:

14: There are several factors which have to be noted. The liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency. The right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. While assessing the quantum, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In other words, multiplier is a measure.

There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement.

Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and

Section 166 is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency.

12 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

15: Section 165 of the Act also throws some light on the controversy. The explanation includes the liability under Sections 140 and 163A.

16: Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act.

In view of the authoritative pronouncement and the petitioners failing to prove that they are dependents of deceased, they are entitled for an amount of Rs.50,000/ under the Head No Fault Liability.

I hold this issue in favour of the petitioners to an extent of

Awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/ under the head No Fault

Liability rejecting the remaining claim on the ground of dependents.

Issue No.3:

31. In view of the findings given to issue Nos.1 and 2 the petition is allowed with proportionate costs awarding an amount of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) against the Respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till full realization. The amount so deposited is apportioned equally to petitioners 1 to 3 with interest.

The rest of the claim is dismissed.

The Petitioners shall pay Court fee on amount claim within one week from today.

13 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ (One Thousand Only).

Typed to dictation by the Stenographe GrI, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 13th day of February,

2020.

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

(Witnesses examined)

For Petitioners For Respondents

PW1 : K. VijayaRW1: Mohd. Gulam Shafi PW2 : Itikyala Srinivas.RW2: S.Chandrasekhar. RW3: D. Sujyothi Rani.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 Copy of FIR

Ex.A2Copy of Inquest report. Ex.A3 Copy of Postmortem report. Ex.A4Copy of Charge sheet.

Ex.A5 Copy of Crime details form along with rough sketch.

Ex.A6Copy of MVI report Ex.A7Death certificate of the deceased. Ex.A8Copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.A9Copy of the RC.

For Respondents:

Ex.B1 Copy of Ration card.

Ex.B2Attested Copy of Insurance Policy.

Ex.X1Authorisation letter dt.07.03.2018.

Ex.X2FSL report issued by FSL, Hyderabad.

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

OP/2018/2014

Smt. Gone Laxmi @ Lakshmi vs Abdul Khadar Mohammed

13 Feb 2020

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE – CUM MOTOR

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD

THURSDAY DATED THIS THE 13 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

PRESENT: SRI K.AJITA SIMHA RAO,

II Additional Chief Judge

M.V.O.P.No.2018 of 2014

Between:

1. Gone Laxmi @ Lakshmi W/o G. Ramachandraiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Housewife. 2.G. Ramachandraiah, S/o Late Komuraiah, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Nil. Both are R/o H.No.134880/4, Karwan, Tappachaputra, Jain Mandir, Hyderabad. …Petitioners

And

1. Abdul Khadar Mohammed S/o Abdul Sattar, aged: Major, Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258, R/o H.No.31127, Asif Pura, Sirisilla, Karim Nagar District.

2. United India Insurance Company Limited, T.P Claim Hub, Rep by Its Manager HRO Posnett Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Church Building, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

Policy No.0523003113P106378790 Valid from 03.01.2014 to 02.01.2015 … Respondents

Sub:Claim Petition filed U/Sec 166 of M.V Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ for the death of Gone Sindhura @ Sindhuja, in a motor vehicle accident on 09062014.

This Original Petition coming on this day before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri G. Narender Reddy,

2 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

AWARD

1.This is an application filed U/Sec 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.,1988 (for short “the Act”) to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ on account of death of Gone Sindhura @ Sindhuja, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 09062014.

2. Precisely, as per the contents of petition, it is the case of the petitioners that Petitioner No.1 is the grand mother and petitioner No.2 is the grand father of Gone Sindhura @ Sindhuja, (herein after referred to as “deceased”) who died in a motor accident on 09.06.2014 at 1400 hours.

3.It is further case of the petitioners that on 09.06.2014 at about 1400 hours the deceased along with her widow mother Gone Padma @

Hymavathi along with the grand parents and other relatives were proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP36Y9687 from Karimnagar towards Vemulawada for Darshan on the way they reached

KamareddyKarimnagar Road, near Arepally Village, Vemulawada

Mandal, Karimnagar District and at that time the lorry bearing No.AP 15Y3258 came from Vemulawada towards Karimnagar in a rash and negligent manner in high speed came in extreme right side and dashed to the auto due to which the auto was crushed underneath of lorry resulting in the death of the deceased and her family members sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

4.It is further case of the petitioners that P.S. Vemulawada,

Karimnagar District registered a case in Crime No.165/2014 under

Section 304A of IPC against the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP15Y

3 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

3258 alleging that he drove the lorry in negligent manner and caused the accident.

5.It is further case of the petitioner that the deceased was a student of Intermediate (MPC) at Bhargavi Junior College at Warangal and was also doing part time job in Kirana General Stores and earning

Rs.3,000/ per month and she used to contribute the same to her family and petitioners are totally dependent on the income of the deceased. Both the petitioners 1 and 2 are grand parents of the deceased and they legal heirs and both of them are entitled for compensation.

Rs.5,00,000/ with interest @ 12% from the date of accident till realisation with costs.

7.The Respondent No.1 remained exparte.

4 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

Karimnagar in a rash and negligent manner caused the accident and due to which the deceased and others sustained injuries and died.

9.It is further contended by the respondent that the petitioners are not legal heirs of the deceased to claim any compensation against the respondents and that they are depended upon the income of the deceased. They are not treated as legal heirs or dependents to claim compensation. It is further contended by the respondent that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto bearing

No.AP36Y9687 and further that the auto was carrying excessive passengers then permitted and contributed to the alleged accident.

Further the driver of the auto was not having valid and effective license.

Therefore, the owner of the auto is also necessary and proper party to the petition. They prayed for dismissal of the petition.

10.The respondent No.2 filed additional counter interalia contending that the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258 was charged under

11.On rival contentions, the following issues were framed by my predecessor:

1)Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258 causing death of Gone Sindhura @ Sindhuja?

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

3)To what relief ?

5 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

12.On behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 herself examined as

PW1, she marked Exs.A1 to A9. She also examined PW2 who is eye witness to the accident.

13.On behalf of the contesting respondent No.2, RW1 to RW3 examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 marked.

14.Heard both sides. Written arguments filed by respondent No.2.

ISSUE NO.1:

Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258 causing death of Gone Sindhura @ Sindhuja?

15.It is the simple case of the petitioner that, the deceased who was travelling in an auto met with an accident due to the offending vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258 and died on the spot.

17.To prove his case the petitioner No.1 herself examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. On the other hand, the respondents also examined RW1 to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was in drunken condition and caused the accident. They got marked Ex.X1 and Ex.X2.

6 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

18.It is an admitted fact that the PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident. The PW1 came to know about the death. PW1 produced

Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 to show that accident took place due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle lorry bearing No. AP 15Y 3258. Ex.A1 is the First Information Report lodged on 09.06.2014 alleging that the driver of the offending vehicle drove it in negligent manner and caused the accident. Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 the inquest and post mortem examination report would reveal that the deceased died due to injury sustained in the accident. Ex.A5 is the scene of offence Panchnama and Ex.A4 is the charge sheet. On plain reading of the charge sheet it is alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was in a drunken condition and that he was charged for the offence under Section 185 of

Motor Vehicles Act.

Police conducted investigation was examined to show that the driver was under influence of the alcohol at the time of accident and therefore

7 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

the policy conditions were violated to refuse granting of award of compensation against the respondent No.2.

RW3, documents under Ex.A4 and Ex.X2 would clearly reveal that the driver of the offending vehicle was not at all in the custody of Police on 09.06.2014 to send his blood samples to the laboratory to prove that he was under influence of alcohol and drove the vehicle in a negligent manner.

22.Further contention raised in the counter that owner of the auto was not made party to the petition as there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. Absolutely, there is no legal evidence putforth by the respondent No.2. To the contrary the contents of Ex.A4 would clearly show that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. Therefore, its contention is not tenable under the law. For the foregoing discussion this Tribunal is of the considered view that the petitioners could prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry bearing No. AP 15Y 3258andcausedthe accident and due to which the deceased died on the spot.

8 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

I hold this issue in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

Issue No.2: “Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and against whom ? ”

23.Entitlement: It is the case of the Petitioners that, they are legal representatives of deceased. It is pleaded in the petition that, petitioner

No.1 and petitioner No.2 are grand parents of deceased. It is serious contention made in the counter that the petitioners are not at all legal representatives or dependents of the deceased.

Cards or other documents evidencing that they were residing with the deceased under the same roof or atleast they were dependent on the earnings of the deceased. It is an admitted fact that deceased and several relatives died in the same accident. It is difficult to accept the petitioners are dependents on the earnings of the deceased. In the absence of such a clinical evidence on record it is required to negate the contention of the petitioners that they are the legal representatives or dependents of the deceased.

9 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

25.The word ‘Legal Representatives’ was not defined under the Act.

The same is defined under Section 2(11) of Code of CPC which is reproduced hereunder:

Legal Representative:

They are required to putforth some acceptable evidence to show that they were representatives or dependents.

26.The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a reported decision in between the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation,

Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Others AIR 1987 SC

1690.

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the brother of the deceased is the legal representative and entitled to claim compensation on the principles of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

(b)He also relied upon the reported decision in between the

Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Another vs. United India

(c)The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a reported decision that in between the Divisional Manager, New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Selvi and others 2014 ACJ 293

“wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that sister and

10 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

(d)The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the reported decision in between P.S. Somanathan and others v. District

Insurance Officer and another 2011 ACJ 737 of Hon’ble Apex

He also relied upon reported decision in between Manohar

Maruti Ghule and another v. Dang Sanjeev and others 2014

ACJ 717 wherein that the parents of married daughter are entitled for compensation when her husband was no more living.

He also relied upon a reported decision that in between A.

Maddaiah and others v. Viswanath and another 2014 ACJ

701 of Andhra Pradesh High Court that major sons are also entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency.

There is no quarrel with the legal preposition enunciated in the above said judgments.

27.Here is the case before this Tribunal that the petitioners are grand parents of of deceased and they failed to produce any evidence to show that they were dependent on the exclusive income of the deceased. They also failed to establish the relationship. They also failed to prove that they were residing with the deceased as on the date of the accident under the same roof. They also failed to disclose their

11 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

particulars as on the date of accident by producing Aadhar cards.

Under law parentsinlaw and sisterinlaw are not entitled to any compensation.

28.In the absence of such evidence and it is an admitted fact the deceased along with relatives died in the same accident and it cannot be said that the petitioners are the dependents of the deceased.

29.The learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.2 fairly submitted that though the petitioners are not dependents on the deceased as legal representatives entitled for the compensation of

Rs.50,000/ on account under head “No Fault Liability”.

30.He invited the attention of this Tribunal to the reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in betweenManjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd. 2007 (3) ALD 55 (SC) “Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held at Paras 14, 15 and 16 as under:

There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement.

Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and

Section 166 is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency.

12 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

15: Section 165 of the Act also throws some light on the controversy. The explanation includes the liability under Sections 140 and 163A.

I hold this issue in favour of the petitioners to an extent of

Awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/ under the head No Fault

Liability rejecting the remaining claim on the ground of dependents.

Issue No.3:

The rest of the claim is dismissed.

The Petitioners shall pay Court fee on amount claim within one week from today.

13 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ (One Thousand Only).

Typed to dictation by the Stenographe GrI, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 13th day of February,

2020.

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

(Witnesses examined)

For Petitioners For Respondents

PW1 : Gone Laxm;i @ LakshmiRW1: Mohd. Gulam Shafi PW2 : Itikyala Srinivas.RW2: S.Chandrasekhar. RW3: D. Sujyothi Rani.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 Copy of FIR along with complaint

Ex.A2Copy of Inquest report. Ex.A3 Copy of Postmortem report. Ex.A4Copy of Charge sheet.

Ex.A5 Copy of Crime details form along with rough sketch.

Ex.A6Copy of MVI report. Ex.A7Death certificate of the deceased. Ex.A8Copy of Insurance Policy Ex.A9Copy of RC.

For Respondents:

Ex.B1 Copy of Ration cards

Ex.B2Attested Copy of Insurance Policy.

Ex.X1Authorisation letter dt.07.03.2018.

Ex.X2FSL report issued by FSL, Hyderabad.

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

OP/2017/2014

Smt. Gone Laxmi @ Lakshmi vs Abdul Khadar Mohammed

13 Feb 2020

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE – CUM MOTOR

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD

THURSDAY DATED THIS THE 13 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

PRESENT: SRI K.AJITA SIMHA RAO,

II Additional Chief Judge

M.V.O.P.No.2017 of 2014

Between:

And

1. Abdul Khadar Mohammed S/o Abdul Sattar, aged: Major, Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258, R/o H.No.31127, Asif Pura, Sirisilla, Karim Nagar District.

2. United India Insurance Company Limited, T.P Claim Hub, Rep by Its Manager HRO Posnett Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Church Building, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

Policy No.0523003113P106378790 Valid from 03.01.2014 to 02.01.2015 … Respondents

Sub:Claim Petition filed U/Sec 166 of M.V Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ for the death of Gone Padma @ Hymavathi, in a motor vehicle accident on 09062014.

This Original Petition coming on this day before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri G. Narender Reddy,

**2** M.V.O.P.NO.2017 OF 2014

AWARD

1.This is an application filed U/Sec 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.,1988 (for short “the Act”) to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ on account of death of Gone Padma @ Hymavathi, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 09062014.

2. Precisely, as per the contents of petition, it is the case of the petitioners that Petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 are adopted parents of Gone Padma @ Hymavathi, (herein after referred to as “deceased”) who died in a motor accident on 09.06.2014 at 1400 hours.

3.It is further case of the petitioners that on 09.06.2014 at about 1400 hours the deceased along with her daughter and parents along with other near relatives were proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP36Y 9687 from Karimnagar towards Vemulawada for Darshan on the way they reached KamareddyKarimnagar Road, near Arepally Village,

Vemulawada Mandal, Karimnagar District and at that time the lorry bearing No.AP15Y3258 came from Vemulawada towards Karimnagar in a rash and negligent manner in high speed came in extreme right side and dashed to the auto due to which the auto was crushed underneath of lorry resulting in the death of the deceased and her family members sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

4.It is further case of the petitioners that P.S. Vemulawada,

Karimnagar District registered a case in Crime No.165/2014 under

Section 304A of IPC against the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP15Y 3258 alleging that he drove the lorry in negligent manner and caused the accident.

**3** M.V.O.P.NO.2017 OF 2014

5.It is further case of the petitioner that the deceased was doing tailoring work and was also skilled worker and earning Rs.9,000/ per month and she used to contribute the same to her family and petitioners are totally dependent on the income of the deceased. Both the petitioners 1 and 2 are adoption parents of the deceased and they legal heirs and both of them are entitled for compensation.

Rs.5,00,000/ with interest @ 12% from the date of accident till realisation with costs.

7.The Respondent No.1 remained exparte.

Karimnagar in a rash and negligent manner caused the accident and due to which the deceased and others sustained injuries and died.

9.It is further contended by the respondent that the petitioners are not legal heirs of the deceased to claim any compensation against the respondents and that they are depended upon the income of the **4** M.V.O.P.NO.2017 OF 2014 deceased. They are not treated as legal heirs or dependents to claim compensation. It is further contended by the respondent that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto bearing

No.AP36Y9687 and further that the auto was carrying excessive passengers then permitted and contributed to the alleged accident.

Further the driver of the auto was not having valid and effective license.

Therefore, the owner of the auto is also necessary and proper party to the petition. They prayed for dismissal of the petition.

10.The respondent No.2 filed additional counter interalia contending that the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258 was charged under

11.On rival contentions, the following issues were framed by my predecessor:

1)Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258 causing death of Gone Padma @ Hymavathi ?

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

3)To what relief ?

12.On behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 herself examined as

PW1, she marked Exs.A1 to A9. She also examined PW2 who is eye witness to the accident.

13.On behalf of the contesting respondent No.2, RW1 to RW3 examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 marked.

**5** M.V.O.P.NO.2017 OF 2014

14.Heard both sides.

15.ISSUE NO.1:

Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258 causing death of Gone Padma @ Hymavathi ?

It is the simple case of the petitioner that, the deceased who was travelling in an auto met with an accident due to the offending vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258 and died on the spot.

18.It is an admitted fact that the PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident. The PW1 came to know about the death. PW1 produced

Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 to show that accident took place due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle lorry bearing No. AP 15Y 3258. Ex.A1 is the First Information Report lodged on 09.06.2014 alleging that the **6** M.V.O.P.NO.2017 OF 2014 driver of the offending vehicle drove it in negligent manner and caused the accident. Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 the inquest and post mortem examination report would reveal that the deceased died due to injury sustained in the accident. Ex.A5 is the scene of offence Panchnama and Ex.A4 is the charge sheet. On plain reading of the charge sheet it is alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was in a drunken condition and that he was charged for the offence under Section 185 of

Motor Vehicles Act.

Police conducted investigation was examined to show that the driver was under influence of the alcohol at the time of accident and therefore the policy conditions were violated to refuse granting of award of compensation against the respondent No.2.

21. On deeply peeping into the charge sheet under Ex.A4, the accident took place on 09.06.2014 at 2.00 p.m. The accused was taken in custody on 12.06.2014. The RW3 who was examined to prove Ex.X2 **7** M.V.O.P.NO.2017 OF 2014 stated that sample was collected on 16.06.2014. It is not the case of the respondents that soon after the accident the driver was arrested on 09.06.2014 and that blood samples were collected and they were sent to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was under influence of alcohol. Therefore, the record itself and the testimonies of PW1 , RW1 and RW3, documents under Ex.A4 and Ex.X2 would clearly reveal that the driver of the offending vehicle was not at all in the custody of Police on 09.06.2014 to send his blood samples to the laboratory to prove that he was under influence of alcohol and drove the vehicle in a negligent manner.

22.Further contention raised in the counter that owner of the auto was not made party to the petition as there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. Absolutely, there is no legal evidence putforth by the respondent No.2. To the contrary the contents of Ex.A4 would clearly show that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. Therefore, its contention is not tenable under the law. For the foregoing discussion this Tribunal is of the considered view that the petitioners could prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry bearing No. AP 15Y 3258andcausedthe accident and due to which the deceased died on the spot.

I hold this issue in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

Issue No.2: “Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and against whom ? ” **8** M.V.O.P.NO.2017 OF 2014

23.Entitlement: It is the case of the Petitioners that, they are legal representatives of deceased Gone Padma. It is pleaded in the petition that, petitioners No.1 and 2 are adopted parents of deceased. It is serious contention made in the counter that the petitioners are not at all legal representatives or dependents of the deceased.

Cards or other documents evidencing that they were residing with the deceased under the same roof or atleast they were dependent on the earnings of the deceased. It is an admitted fact that deceased along with some relatives died in the same accident. The family of deceased was a separate family. It is difficult to accept the petitioners are dependents on the earnings of the deceased. In the absence of such a clinical evidence on record it is required to negate the contention of the petitioners that they are the legal representatives or dependents of the deceased.

25.The word ‘Legal Representatives’ was not defined under the Act.

The same is defined under Section 2(11) of Code of CPC which is reproduced hereunder:

Legal Representative:

Legal representative means a person, who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who **9** M.V.O.P.NO.2017 OF 2014 intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued:

They are required to putforth some acceptable evidence to show that they were representatives or dependents.

26.The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a reported decision in between the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation,

Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Others AIR 1987 SC

1690.

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the brother of the deceased is the legal representative and entitled to claim compensation on the principles of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

(b)He also relied upon the reported decision in between the

Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Another vs. United India

(c)The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a reported decision that in between the Divisional Manager, New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Selvi and others 2014 ACJ 293

“wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that sister and brother of their bachelor who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident and his parents were also not alive or entitled for compensation as on the basis of deposition the sister of the deceased residing with them that they were dependent on his income.” **10** M.V.O.P.NO.2017 OF 2014

(d)The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the reported decision in between P.S. Somanathan and others v. District

Insurance Officer and another 2011 ACJ 737 of Hon’ble Apex

He also relied upon reported decision in between Manohar

Maruti Ghule and another v. Dang Sanjeev and others 2014

ACJ 717 wherein that the parents of married daughter are entitled for compensation when her husband was no more living.

He also relied upon a reported decision that in between A.

Maddaiah and others v. Viswanath and another 2014 ACJ

701 of Andhra Pradesh High Court that major sons are also entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency.

There is no quarrel with the legal preposition enunciated in the above said judgments.

27.Here is the case before this Tribunal that the petitioners No.1 and 2 are adopted parents of deceased. They failed to produce any evidence to show that they were dependent on the exclusive income of the deceased and also they are adopted parents. They also failed to establish the relationship. They also failed to prove that they were residing with the deceased as on the date of the accident under the same roof. They also failed to disclose their particulars as on the date of accident by producing Aadhar cards. Under law parentsinlaw and sisterinlaw are not entitled to any compensation.

**11** M.V.O.P.NO.2017 OF 2014

28.In the absence of such evidence and it is an admitted fact the deceased along with some relatives died in the same accident and it cannot be said that the petitioners are the dependents of the deceased.

29.The learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.2 fairly submitted that though the petitioners are not dependents on the deceased as legal representatives entitled for the compensation of

Rs.50,000/ on account under head “No Fault Liability”.

30.He invited the attention of this Tribunal to the reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in betweenManjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd. 2007 (3) ALD 55 (SC) “Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held at Paras 14, 15 and 16 as under:

There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement.

Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and

Section 166 is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency.

15: Section 165 of the Act also throws some light on the controversy. The explanation includes the liability under Sections 140 and 163A.

16: Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of **12** M.V.O.P.NO.2017 OF 2014 the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act.

I hold this issue in favour of the petitioners to an extent of

Awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/ under the head No Fault

Liability rejecting the remaining claim on the ground of dependents.

Issue No.3:

The rest of the claim is dismissed.

The Petitioners shall pay Court fee on amount claim within one week from today.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ (One Thousand Only).

Typed to dictation by the Stenographe GrI, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 13th day of February,

2020.

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

**13** M.V.O.P.NO.2017 OF 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

(Witnesses examined)

For Petitioners For Respondents

PW1 : Gone Laxmi @ LakshmiRW1: Mohd. Gulam Shafi PW2 : Itikyala Srinivas.RW2: S.Chandrasekhar. RW3: D. Sujyothi Rani.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 Copy of FIR along with complaint

Ex.A2Copy of Inquest report. Ex.A3 Copy of Postmortem report. Ex.A4Copy of Charge sheet.

Ex.A5 Copy of Crime details form along with rough sketch.

Ex.A6Copy of MVI report. Ex.A7Death certificate of the deceased. Ex.A8Copy of Insurance Policy Ex.A9Copy of RC.

For Respondents:

Ex.B1 Copy of Ration card.

Ex.B2Attested Copy of Insurance Policy.

Ex.X1Authorisation letter dt.07.03.2018.

Ex.X2FSL report issued by FSL, Hyderabad.

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

OP/2014/2014

K. Narasaiah vs Abdul Khadar Mohammed

13 Feb 2020

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE – CUM MOTOR

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD

THURSDAY DATED THIS THE 13 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

PRESENT: SRI K.AJITA SIMHA RAO,

II Additional Chief Judge

M.V.O.P.No.2014 of 2014

Between:

1. K. Narasaiah, S/o Late K. Komuraiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Nil.

2. Kum K. Shoba Rani D/o K. Narasaiah, Aged about 19 years, Occ: Student. Both are R/o H.No.134880/4, Karwan, Tappachaputra, Jain Mandir, Hyderabad. …Petitioners

And

1. Abdul Khadar Mohammed S/o Abdul Sattar, aged: Major, Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258, R/o H.No.31127, Asif Pura, Sirisilla, Karim Nagar District.

2. United India Insurance Company Limited, T.P Claim Hub, Rep by Its Manager HRO Posnett Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Church Building, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

Policy No.0523003113P106378790 Valid from 03.01.2014 to 02.01.2015 … Respondents

Sub:Claim Petition filed U/Sec 166 of M.V Act, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/ for the death of K. Komaramallu, in a motor vehicle accident on 0906 2014.

This Original Petition coming on this day before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri G. Narender Reddy,

2 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

AWARD

1.This is an application filed U/Sec 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.,1988 (for short “the Act”) to award compensation of Rs.8,00,000/ on account of death of K. Komaramallu, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 09062014.

2. Precisely, as per the contents of petition, it is the case of the petitioners that Petitioner No.1 is the younger brother of deceased

K. Komaramallu and petitioner No.2 is the daughter of the petitioner

No.1, who died in a motor accident on 09.06.2014 at 1400 hours.

3.It is further case of the petitioners that on 09.06.2014 at about 1400 hours the deceased along with his wife and children and other relatives were proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP36Y9687 from

Karimnagar towards Vemulawada for Darshan on the way they reached

Kamareddy, Karimnagar Road, near Arepally Village, Vemulawada

Mandal, Karimnagar District and at that time the lorry bearing No.AP 15Y3258 came from Vemulawada towards Karimnagar in a rash and negligent manner in high speed came in extreme right side and dashed to the auto due to which the auto was crushed underneath of lorry resulting in the death of the deceased and her family members sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

4.It is further case of the petitioners that P.S. Vemulawada,

Karimnagar District registered a case in Crime No.165/2014 under

Section 304A of IPC against the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP15Y 3258 alleging that he drove the lorry in negligent manner and caused the accident.

3 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

5.It is further case of the petitioner that the deceased was working as a labour earning Rs.9,000/ per month (Rs.300/ per day) and he used to contribute the same to his family and petitioners are totally dependent on the income of the deceased. Both the petitioners 1 and 2 are legal heirs and both of them are entitled for compensation.

Rs.8,00,000/ with interest @ 12% from the date of accident till realisation with costs.

7.The Respondent No.1 remained exparte.

Karimnagar in a rash and negligent manner caused the accident and due to which the deceased and others sustained injuries and died.

4 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

compensation. It is further contended by the respondent that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto bearing

No.AP36Y9687 and further that the auto was carrying excessive passengers then permitted and contributed to the alleged accident.

Further the driver of the auto was not having valid and effective license.

Therefore, the owner of the auto is also necessary and proper party to the petition. They prayed for dismissal of the petition.

10.The respondent No.2 filed additional counter interalia contending that the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258 was charged under

11.On rival contentions, the following issues were framed by my predecessor:

1)Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258 causing death of K. Komaramallu?

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

3)To what relief ?

12.On behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 himself examined as

PW1, he marked Exs.A1 to A9. He also examined PW2 who is eye witness to the accident.

13.On behalf of the contesting respondent No.2, RW1 to RW3 examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 marked.

5 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

14.Heard both sides.

15.ISSUE NO.1:

Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258 causing death of K. Komaramallu?

It is the simple case of the petitioner that, the deceased who was travelling in an auto met with an accident due to the offending vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 15Y 3258 and died on the spot.

17.To prove his case the petitioner No.1 himself examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. On the other hand, the respondents also examined RW1 to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was in drunken condition and caused the accident. They got marked Ex.X1 and Ex.X2.

18.It is an admitted fact that the PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident. The PW1 came to know about the death. PW1 produced

6 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

the accident. Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 the inquest and post mortem examination report would reveal that the deceased died due to injury sustained in the accident. Ex.A5 is the scene of offence Panchnama and Ex.A4 is the charge sheet. On plain reading of the charge sheet it is alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was in a drunken condition and that he was charged for the offence under Section 185 of

Motor Vehicles Act.

Police conducted investigation was examined to show that the driver was under influence of alcohol at the time of accident and therefore the policy conditions were violated to refuse granting of award of compensation against the respondent No.2.

7 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

the respondents that soon after the accident the driver was arrested on 09.06.2014 and that blood samples were collected and they were sent to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was under influence of alcohol. Therefore, the record itself, the testimonies of PW1 , RW1 and

22.Further contention raised in the counter that owner of the auto was not made party to the petition as there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. Absolutely, there is no legal evidence putforth by the respondent No.2. To the contrary, the contents of Ex.A4 would clearly show that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. Therefore, its contention is not tenable under the law. For the foregoing discussion this Tribunal is of the considered view that the petitioners could prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry bearing No. AP 15Y 3258 and caused the accident and due to which the deceased died on the spot.

I hold this issue in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

Issue No.2: “Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and against whom ? ”

8 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

23.Entitlement: It is the case of the Petitioners that, they are legal representatives of deceased. It is pleaded in the petition that, petitioner

No.1 is the brother and petitioner No.2 is daughter of petitioner No.1.

It is serious contention made in the counter that the petitioners are not at all legal representatives or dependents of the deceased.

Cards or other documents evidencing that they were residing with the deceased under the same roof or atleast they were dependent on the earnings of the deceased. It is an admitted fact that deceased and some of the relatives died in the same accident. The family of deceased was a separate family. It is difficult to accept the petitioners are dependents on the earnings of the deceased. In the absence of such a clinical evidence on record it is required to negate the contention of the petitioners that they are the legal representatives or dependents of the deceased.

25.The word ‘Legal Representatives’ was not defined under the Act.

The same is defined under Section 2(11) of Code of CPC which is reproduced hereunder:

Legal Representative:

Legal representative means a person, who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who

9 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued:

They are required to putforth some acceptable evidence to show that they were representatives or dependents.

26.The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a reported decision in between the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation,

Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Others AIR 1987 SC

1690.

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the brother of the deceased is the legal representative and entitled to claim compensation on the principles of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

(b)He also relied upon the reported decision in between the

Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Another vs. United India

(c)The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a reported decision that in between the Divisional Manager, New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Selvi and others 2014 ACJ 293

10 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

(d)The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the reported decision in between P.S. Somanathan and others v. District

Insurance Officer and another 2011 ACJ 737 of Hon’ble Apex

He also relied upon reported decision in between Manohar

Maruti Ghule and another v. Dang Sanjeev and others 2014

ACJ 717 wherein that the parents of married daughter are entitled for compensation when her husband was no more living.

He also relied upon a reported decision that in between A.

Maddaiah and others v. Viswanath and another 2014 ACJ

701 of Andhra Pradesh High Court that major sons are also entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency.

There is no quarrel with the legal preposition enunciated in the above said judgments.

27.Here is the case before this Tribunal that the petitioners No.1 is brother of deceased and petitioner No.2 is daughter of petitioner No.1.

They failed to produce any evidence to show that they were dependent on the exclusive income of the deceased. They also failed to establish the relationship. They also failed to prove that they were residing with the deceased as on the date of the accident under the same roof. They also failed to disclose their particulars as on the date of accident by producing Aadhar cards. Under law parentsinlaw and sisterinlaw are not entitled to any compensation.

11 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

29.The learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.2 fairly submitted that though the petitioners are not dependents on the deceased as legal representatives entitled for the compensation of

Rs.50,000/ on account under head “No Fault Liability”.

30.He invited the attention of this Tribunal to the reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in betweenManjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd. 2007 (3) ALD 55 (SC) “Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held at Paras 14, 15 and 16 as under:

There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement.

Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and

Section 166 is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency.

15: Section 165 of the Act also throws some light on the controversy. The explanation includes the liability under Sections 140 and 163A.

16: Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of

12 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act.

I hold this issue in favour of the petitioners to an extent of

Awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/ under the head No Fault

Liability rejecting the remaining claim on the ground of dependents.

Issue No.3:

The rest of the claim is dismissed.

The Petitioners shall pay Court fee on amount claim within one week from today.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ (One Thousand Only).

Typed to dictation by the Stenographe GrI, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 13th day of February,

2020.

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

13 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

(Witnesses examined)

For Petitioners For Respondents

PW1 : K. Narasaiah.RW1: Mohd. Gulam Shafi PW2 : Itikyala Srinivas.RW2: S.Chandrasekhar. RW3: D. Sujyothi Rani.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 Copy of FIR along with complaint.

Ex.A2Copy of Inquest report. Ex.A3 Copy of Postmortem report. Ex.A4Copy of Charge sheet.

Ex.A5 Copy of Crime details form along with rough sketch.

Ex.A6Copy of MVI report Ex.A7Death certificate of the deceased. Ex.A8Copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.A9Copy of RC.

For Respondents:

Ex.B1 Attested Copy of Insurance Policy.

Ex.B2FSC Application search issued by Deputy Tahsildar. Ex.X1Authorisation letter dt.07.03.2018.

Ex.X2FSL report issued by FSL, Hyderabad.

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

EP/102/2019

M/s. Neogrowth Credit Private Limited. vs Veerabhadra swamy traders

13 Feb 2020

Order Record 82 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/102/2019	M/s. Neogrowth Credit Private Limited. vs Veerabhadra swamy traders	13 Feb 2020	Orders	—
OP/1921/2014	Smt. K. Vijaya vs Mr. Abdul Khadar Mohammed	13 Feb 2020	Orders	—
OP/2014/2014	K. Narasaiah vs Abdul Khadar Mohammed	13 Feb 2020	Orders	—
OP/2017/2014	Smt. Gone Laxmi @ Lakshmi vs Abdul Khadar Mohammed	13 Feb 2020	Orders	—
OP/2018/2014	Smt. Gone Laxmi @ Lakshmi vs Abdul Khadar Mohammed	13 Feb 2020	Orders	—
OP/2019/2014	Smt. K. Vijaya vs Abdul Khadar Mohammed	13 Feb 2020	Orders	—
OP/2021/2014	Smt. E. Sujatha @ M. Sujatha vs Abdul Khadar Mohammed	13 Feb 2020	Orders	—
EP/300104/2017	HDFC Bank Ltd vs Bugidi Rama Krishna	12 Feb 2020	Orders	—
CMA/103/2018	Kushal Constructions vs Sanjay Kumar	11 Feb 2020	Orders	—
OP/1982/2015	V. Parvathi Alias Raju vs V. Vasu	11 Feb 2020	Orders	—
OP/2403/2015	Pasula Anjamma and 3 others vs N.Amose	11 Feb 2020	Orders	—
OS/556/2013	Ms Karvy Stock Broking Ltd vs Ms Abner Impex Pvt Limited	10 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
AS/219/2013	Smt. Parimala Nagaraj vs Dr. Parimi Raghavaram	07 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OS/242/2019	Kotakonda Chitralekha vs The Mandal Revenue Officer	06 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
OP/2250/2011	Ms.Som Datt Builders limited vs Chief Engineer R and B, M.D.,APRDC,	05 Feb 2020	Orders	—
AS/267/2016	Anthati Bhagya Lakshmi vs Anthati Yadaiah	04 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
A.R.B.O.P/1/2019	M/s Springboard Education Private Limited vs Aruna Nekkanti	04 Feb 2020	Orders	—
OP/1730/2016	Komera Srishailam vs K. Srinivas Reddy	03 Feb 2020	Orders	—
OS/653/2010	S.A REHAN vs MOHD JAMEEL	31 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
AS/251/2017	Y.Neelakanta Reddy vs B.Srinivas	28 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OP/1261/2017	S. Latha vs M. Ravinder Reddy	28 Jan 2020	Orders	—
AS/135/2017	M.Rama Mohan vs M/s. Hyderabad Securityies and enterprises Ltd.,	24 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OP/2122/2007	T. Anupama vs G. Ranga Reddy	24 Jan 2020	Orders	—
OS/485/2006	MS Amanya Enterprises vs Mrs.Pushpalatha Agarwal And 2 Others	22 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OP/229/2014	Kum. A. Varsha vs A. Padma	21 Jan 2020	Orders	—
OP/230/2014	Kum. A. Varsha vs A. Padma	21 Jan 2020	Orders	—
OS/263/2013	Jay Em Exports vs Kakatiya Cement Sugar and Industries Ltd	21 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
OP/203/2016	Indus Towers Limited vs Ms. Sita Estates	08 Jan 2020	Orders	—
OP/1368/2016	L. Rajya vs Subhash Pareek	08 Jan 2020	Orders	—
OP/1032/2017	D. Jagan Mohan Rao vs Raju Belaru	31 Dec 2019	Orders	—
OP/2001/2015	G.Narasimhulu vs AP GOVT.Vehicle Drivers Central Association	31 Dec 2019	Orders	—
OP/2753/2018	G.Sreenivasa Babu vs The district Collector	30 Dec 2019	Orders	—
OP/3152/2017	Smt.Bhawani Sujatha vs Syed Afzal	30 Dec 2019	Orders	—
OS/562/2013	Smt. Raj Shri vs The commissioner GHMC	30 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
OS/107/2011	-- vs Syed Jalaluddin and others	27 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
AS/7/2009	Kapil Ch. vs G.Rajendra 3 Others	23 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
OS/231/2019	Dr.Penta Pramila vs M/s Prathishta properties Pvt Ltd	23 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
AS/186/2012	Rajeshwar Pershad died per L.Rs vs Smt. Durga Bai	20 Dec 2019	Orders	—
OS/120/2011	M.M.ALI TAHER vs BAGHDADI TOURS AND TRAVELS	20 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
OS/8/2010	PARIKH FABRICS PVT., LTD., vs DIPEN A JHAVERI	18 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
OS/318/2012	Ms.Carzonrent India Private Limited vs Media Cube Marketing and Advertising Private Ltd.,	17 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
AS/258/2015	Madhu Bai vs Md.Eraj Hasan Ansari	16 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
AS/380/2013	H.E.H. the Nizam Awakaf Committee. vs Maqbool Khan	16 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
OP/672/2018	A.Prasada Rao vs M.Srinivasa Babu	12 Dec 2019	Orders	—
OP/1455/1996	Manjeet Singh Another vs The Branch Manager Union Bank Of India.	09 Dec 2019	Orders	—
OS/176/2014	Madan Kapoor vs P.Jaiveer Rao	06 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
OP/264/2012	D. Srinu vs Ramdarsh Alaknarayan Chauhan	05 Dec 2019	Orders	—
OP/2962/2017	T. Venkatesh vs M.Jaya Krishna	05 Dec 2019	Orders	—
OP/3070/2016	K.Ambika vs T.Sailu	05 Dec 2019	Orders	—
OP/1481/2015	J. Sudarshan vs G. Venugopal Reddy	03 Dec 2019	Orders	—
OP/2492/2015	Ch. Raju Goud vs Tamboli Khalil	03 Dec 2019	Orders	—
AS/77/2018	N.Raju vs Mohd Pervez Sajjad	02 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
OP/190/2015	A.Vamshidhar vs Ms.Buraq Truckers Pvt. Ltd., and Reliance Gen. In	29 Nov 2019	Orders	—
OP/495/2015	K. Prabhakar Naidu vs B.L. Seetaram Iyengar	29 Nov 2019	Orders	—
OP/966/2012	Dr. Rama Krishna vs Special Grade Deputy Collector	28 Nov 2019	Orders	—
OP/2187/2012	Smt. K. Leelavathi vs Spl Deputy collector	27 Nov 2019	Orders	—
OP/2216/2009	Smt.Mekala Eshwaramma vs The Spl.Deputy Collector	27 Nov 2019	Orders	—
OP/1623/2015	S. Veer Reddy. vs Nandu Ravinder	26 Nov 2019	Orders	—
OS/67/2008	Syed Asim Bahadur vs Madan Kumar Jaiswal	25 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OP/1980/2012	Ms Genetix Biotech Asia Pvt. Ltd., vs Ms Gati Limited	21 Nov 2019	Orders	—
OP/2551/2016	D. Venkateshwarlu vs B. Saroja	21 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OP/2294/2013	Sujatha Kannoth vs G. Siva Sankar Reddy	20 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OP/206/2007	Mohd Sadiq vs U.I.I	19 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OP/3106/2017	Anakapally swamy vs P.Ganesharaja	19 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OP/3107/2017	G.Rukmamma vs Ganesharja .P	19 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OP/3108/2017	D.parvathamma vs P.Ganesharaja	19 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OP/2724/2016	Kanakanala Lakshmi vs N. Pradeep	14 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OS/174/2018	A.Sudhakar Reddy vs M/s. Aradhya Infra.	14 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OP/1470/2016	Bolgari Narsimha vs Mohd Mujahed Hussain	13 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OS/97/2019	Sravani Motati vs The Tahsildar,	08 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OP/1403/2017	Balla Vykuntam vs T.Ramesh	07 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OS/444/2019	B.R.Raj Laxmi vs The Tahsildar,	07 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OS/537/2019	Mohammed Hamed vs Korrapati Seshachala Srinivasa Murali Krishna	07 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OP/1029/2016	A. Madhavi vs Y. Laxminarayana	06 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OS/362/2019	Thanneru Swaroopa vs The Tahsildar,	04 Nov 2019	Judgement	—
OP/1591/2015	M.Narsimlu vs Gulvinder Singh Darsingh Dhaliwal	31 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OP/2073/2016	J. Vasanth vs Bhimashankar	31 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OP/2074/2016	J. Vasanth vs Bhimashankar	31 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OP/2103/2016	Ramavath Jagi Bai vs Bhimashankar	31 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OP/2104/2016	J. Bajrang vs Bhimashankar	31 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OP/1940/2015	G.Raju vs P.Manoj	30 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OP/1959/2015	G.Raju vs P.Manoj	30 Oct 2019	Judgement	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Feb 2020		18
Jan 2020		11
Dec 2019		23
Nov 2019		23
Oct 2019		7

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SRI K AJITHA SIMHA RAO handled?

SRI K AJITHA SIMHA RAO has handled 82 court orders since 2019 at HYD, City Civil Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 45 orders per month.

What types of cases does SRI K AJITHA SIMHA RAO hear?

Based on available records, SRI K AJITHA SIMHA RAO primarily handles Civil matters (Original Petitions, Original Suits) at HYD, City Civil Court Complex.

Where is SRI K AJITHA SIMHA RAO currently posted?

SRI K AJITHA SIMHA RAO is posted as CHIEF JUDGE at HYD, City Civil Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by SRI K AJITHA SIMHA RAO available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by SRI K AJITHA SIMHA RAO are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SRI K AJITHA SIMHA RAO dispose cases?

SRI K AJITHA SIMHA RAO disposes approximately 45 cases per month, based on 82 orders handled over their tenure at HYD, City Civil Court Complex.

Since when is SRI K AJITHA SIMHA RAO serving?

SRI K AJITHA SIMHA RAO has been serving at HYD, City Civil Court Complex since 2019.

Case Types

OP 62%

OS 22%

AS 11%

EP 2%

A 1%

CMA 1%

Posting History

Dec 2019 — Dec 2019

CHIEF JUDGE
Oct 2019 — Feb 2020

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE · 82 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri. S Sasidhar Reddy

CHIEF JUDGE

1,099 orders

Smt. Y. Padma

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

1,069 orders

Manisha Sravan Unnam

III ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

0 orders

Sri. K. Murali Mohan

IX ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

121 orders

Sri. Ch. Jithendhar

X ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

299 orders

Smt. P.lakshmi Kumari

XI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

1 orders

Smt. M. Padmaja

XIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

1,179 orders

Sri. D.v. Nageswara Rao

XXV ADDL CHIEF JUDGE

1,759 orders

Smt. Vempati Aparna

XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

14 orders

Ms. Shalini Lingam

II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

86 orders

Smt. Putta Mounika

III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

5 orders

Ms. K.Keerthana

IV JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

20 orders

Ms. G.Girija

V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

36 orders

Ms. Anamika

VI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

670 orders

Ms. K.Bindu

VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

137 orders

Ms. B.Manasa

VIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

64 orders

Smt. B. Kalpana

IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

210 orders

Smt. Arisha Nusrat

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

2 orders

Sri. Rama Chandra Rao Nadendla

XIX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

339 orders

Gopi Krishna Kumaram

XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

0 orders

Sri C.suresh

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

344 orders

Sri. B. Rama Rao

II SENIOR CIVIL JUGDE

45 orders

Sri. G. Uday Kumar

THE PRL. SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF DISTRICT JU...

48 orders

Sri. N. Venkat Ram

ADDL. SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF DISTRICT JUDGE...

19 orders

← View all judges at HYD, City Civil Court Complex

Sri K Ajitha Simha Rao

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD

THURSDAY DATED THIS THE 13 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

PRESENT: ­ SRI K.AJITA SIMHA RAO,

M.V.O.P.No.1921 of 2014

**2** M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

AWARD

**3** M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

**4** M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

**5** M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

**6** M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

**7** M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

**8** M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

**9** M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Others AIR 1987 SC

Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Another vs. United India

Assurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Selvi and others 2014 ACJ 293

**10** M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

Maruti Ghule and another v. Dang Sanjeev and others 2014

Maddaiah and others v. Viswanath and another 2014 ACJ

**11** M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

**12** M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

**13** M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

(Witnesses examined)

EXHIBITS MARKED

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD

THURSDAY DATED THIS THE 13 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

PRESENT: ­ SRI K.AJITA SIMHA RAO,

M.V.O.P.No.2018 of 2014

**2** M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

AWARD

**3** M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

**4** M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

**5** M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

**6** M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

**7** M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

**8** M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

**9** M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Others AIR 1987 SC

Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Another vs. United India

Assurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Selvi and others 2014 ACJ 293

**10** M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

Maruti Ghule and another v. Dang Sanjeev and others 2014

Maddaiah and others v. Viswanath and another 2014 ACJ

**11** M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

**12** M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

**13** M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

(Witnesses examined)

EXHIBITS MARKED

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD

THURSDAY DATED THIS THE 13 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

PRESENT: ­ SRI K.AJITA SIMHA RAO,

M.V.O.P.No.2017 of 2014

AWARD

Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Others AIR 1987 SC

Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Another vs. United India

Assurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Selvi and others 2014 ACJ 293

Maruti Ghule and another v. Dang Sanjeev and others 2014

Maddaiah and others v. Viswanath and another 2014 ACJ

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

(Witnesses examined)

EXHIBITS MARKED

II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD

THURSDAY DATED THIS THE 13 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

PRESENT: ­ SRI K.AJITA SIMHA RAO,

M.V.O.P.No.2014 of 2014

PRESENT: SRI K.AJITA SIMHA RAO,

2 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

3 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

4 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

5 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

6 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

7 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

8 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

9 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

10 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

11 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

12 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

13 M.V.O.P.NO.1921 OF 2014

PRESENT: SRI K.AJITA SIMHA RAO,

2 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

3 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

4 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

5 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

6 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

7 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

8 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

9 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

10 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

11 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

12 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

13 M.V.O.P.NO.2018 OF 2014

PRESENT: SRI K.AJITA SIMHA RAO,

PRESENT: SRI K.AJITA SIMHA RAO,

2 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

3 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

4 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

5 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

6 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

7 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

8 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

9 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

10 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

11 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

12 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014

13 M.V.O.P.NO.2014 OF 2014