Sri. K. Prabhakara Rao

1 OS No. 176 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL

COURT AT ; HYDERABAD

FRIDAY DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

Present : Sri K. Kalyan Chakravarthy,

III Addl. Chief Judge,

OS No. 176 of 2011

Between :

1. M/s Sri Krishna Jewellers Private Ltd, A Company registered under Companies Act, 1956, represented by authorized Signatory Sri Nischal Trivedi, Office at Sri Krishna House, 8­2­626/2, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 

2. Shiv Charan S/o Sri Mahabeer Pershad, aged : 70 years.

3. Pradeep Kumar S/o Sri Shiv Charan, aged 44 years, Both plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are R/o H.No.8­2­618/11/1 to 13, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.… Plaintiffs A N D

M/s Shri Krishna Jewellers, #5­9­42, Beside Victory Color Lab (Victory Photo Emporium), Basheerbagh, Hyderabad – 63 (AP), Represented by its authorised person.… Defendant.

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Vijay Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri

P.N.A. Christian filed vakalath for defendant but defendant did not file written statement and the matter having stood over for consideration and this court delivered the following : 

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed under Sections 27(2), 29, 134 and 135 of

Trade Marks Act for grant of injunction restraining the defendant from using, exhibiting, displaying in any manner or doing business, advertising directly in India or elsewhere or directly or indirectly in the product and services namely “Shri Krishna Jewellers” and “Shri Krishna Jewellers with feather as logo”or any other deceptively similar or identical variant of any of the plaintiff’s trade marks amounting to infringement of registered trade marks of the plaintiff. Further plaintiff also sought injunction directing the defendant from using the trade/service mark “SKJ’ and “Sri

Krishna Jewellers” in any manner and for mandatory injunction directing 2 OS No. 176 of 2011 the defendant to destroy all materials made including brochures, leaf lets, pamphlets, advertisements and any printed or published form of the impugned phrases or trade marks “Shri Krishna Jewellers” and “Shri

Krishna Jewellers with feather as logo”together with any digital data and for Rs.One crore damages.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are :­ a.The first plaintiff is M/s Sri Krishna Jewellers is a partnership firm formed under the Indian Partnership Act, in the year 1976 (subsequently the plaint amended and name of the plaintiff is changed as M/s. Sri

Krishna Jewellers Private Ltd as it became company). The plaintiffs are engaged in the business of purchase, manufacture and sale of gold ornaments, silver articles, precious stones and gems by way of retail and export under the name and style of “Sri Krishna Jewellers”. In the course of said business the plaintiff honestly conceived and adopted the trademarks, logo mark and trade name i.e “SKJ” “Sri Krishna Jewellers” respectively in respect of the said business and had been continuously using the same without there being any interruption from any body. The plaintiff spent substantial amounts towards advertisement and promotion of their trademarks/trade name and logo. In order to safeguard their legitimate business interests took all necessary steps to get their trademark, logo and trade name and registered and protected under law by making the requisite trade mark applications, before the Trade Mark

Registry, Chennai and after completing all procedural formalities, the plaintiff was issued the Certificate of registration of Trade Marks vide Nos.

1283067, 1283068 and 1283069 under Section 23(2) of the Trade Marks

Act read with Rule 62(1) of the Trade Marks Rules on 16.02.2006 and 3 OS No. 176 of 2011 24.03.2007. The plaintiffs are the registered proprietor of the trade marks “SKJ” “Sri Krishna Jewellers” with respect to retail/sale of jewellery and precious stones etc., under clause 42 of the Fourth Schedule to the

Trademark Rules. The plaintiffs earned their reputation and branch name as well as goodwill amongst their customers in India as well as over the years. The plaintiff opened their own exclusive outlet under the subject trademarks in United States of America to provide their services.

Due to continuous and uninterrupted usage of the said trademarks/trade name and logo since 1976 the plaintiffs are entitled for common law rights apart from rights available under the Trade Marks Act. 

b.The plaintiff alone and no one else had privilege and undivided identification with their trademarks and thus the trademark, trade name belongs to exclusively to plaintiffs and no one else are entitled to use the trademark, logo and trade name or in deceptively or identical trademark, trade name, logo by any unauthorized person. If any person use of similar or trademarks it may lead to confusion and deception amongst the public and public can be misled, and will be cheated with the service of inferior standards can be passed off as the jewellery and services of the plaintiff. 

c.In February, 2011 the plaintiff came to know that the defendant is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of jewellery has adopted and using the identical trade name and trade marks as “Shri Krishna

Jewellers” and “Shri Krishna Jewellers with feather as logo” which amounts to clear infringement of the plaintiffs registered trademarks. The plaintiffs are not aware of the constitution of the defendant inspite of 4 OS No. 176 of 2011 making best efforts. The plaintiff never permitted the defendant to use their trademarks, trade name or logo for the said business. The adoption and use by the defendant of the trademarks “Shri Krishna Jewellers” and “Shri Krishna Jewellers with feather as logo” are almost identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks which amounts to infringement of the Trademarks of the plaintiffs. After noticing the unauthorized use of their trademarks, to protect their interest, the plaintiffs got published a caution notice in two leadings news papers I.e in

Indian Express daily and Sakshi Daily on 23.02.2011 and plaintiff also issued a cease and desist notice dt. 23.02.2011 to the defendant demanding the defendant to immediately desist from using the plaintiffs trademarks. The defendant received the notice but did not issue any reply and continue to use the deceptive trade name, trademarks and logo.

It is clear that the defendant is entertaining the malafide intention to enrich upon the goodwill and reputation built by the plaintiff and for that purpose using the deceptive trademarks, trade name and logo and thereby infringing the trademarks, trade name and logo of the plaintiff.

Using such deceptive name, logo by defendant, which are identical with the goods of the plaintiff, the class of customers and channels of trade of plaintiff as well as defendants are identical and further defendant used deceptive trademarks, trade name and logo. Over all the defendant created an impression as if it is promoting the goods of the plaintiff. The defendant is trying to take advantage of the goodwill of the plaintiff built up their past 36 years and the potential customers are likely to be confused, misled and bound to wonder about the connection/association between the plaintiffs and defendant which will negative impact on the plaintiffs reputation as well as business. The defendant willfully 5 OS No. 176 of 2011 misrepresenting the pubic as if it is associated with the plaintiffs or approved by the plaintiff for business in order to pass off their business as those of plaintiffs. In those circumstances, it is necessary to restrain the defendant from using the trademarks, trade name and logo identical to the plaintiffs, so as to prevent further damages to the plaintiffs business.

d.Because of such deceptive trade methods by the defendant the plaintiff suffered immense loss both monetary and reputation. The defendant can have no plausible reason to explain the adoption of its mark except to take undue advantage of the reputation of the plaintiff.

If the defendant permitted to continue and use of such deceptive trademark the plaintiff will be put to suffer loss and plaintiff cannot be continued in any other means. In those circumstances, the present suit is filed for injunction against the defendant and for damages. 

3.Summons were given to defendant after appearance of the defendant, defendant did not file any written statement. However, earlier docket order show that the defendant filed a memo claiming that the stay was granted by Intellectual Appellate Board at Chennai in ORA 96/12/TM/CH, 97/12/TM/CH, and 98/12/TM/CH challenging the trademark certificate of the plaintiffs. However, subsequently no such stay order copy was filed except filing memo, further more for subsequent adjournment there was no representation by the defendant and written statement was not filed. There after several adjournments were taken upto 14.06.2016 without any progress in the suit. On that day there was no representation by either side and again the matter was adjourned to from time to time upto 16.03.2018. On that day also there was no 6 OS No. 176 of 2011 representation by the defendant and this court passed a direction that both parties shall appear and file memo regarding the so called stay and posted the matter to 20.04.2018. On that day the matter was called but there was no representation by the defendant. It is observed by this court till no stay order is filed before the court and further in view of the circular of the Hon’ble High Court in ROC No.386/SO/15 dt. 18.04.2018 if any stay is granted, the same is lapsed within six months. Further this court also observed that in spite of conditional order passed on 16.03.2018 but both parties did not appear and directing the both parties to appear on 15.06.2018 or otherwise stay will be dismissed. On 15.06.2018 the matter was called but there was no representation and so the matter was adjourned from time to time upto 17.10.2018. On that day as there was no representation this court reiterating the circular of

Hon’ble High Court in ROC 2573/OP Cell/2018 posted to 05.11.2018 for

filing written statement. There after there was no representation by the defendant, written statement is not filed on 15.02.2019 when the matter was called order passed by this court as if stay was granted by this court on 01.07.2011 in view of filing of rectification application before the Trade mark Registry. There after again the matter was adjourned from time to time and ultimately the matter was called on 14.09.2021. on that day the plaintiff was present but no representation by the defendant. This court observed that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board Chennai did not grant any stay. Further more the copy of the notices filed on 17.06.2012 are not showing any grant of stay in ORA No.96/12 to 98/12 but, however, the matter is continuously adjourned from time to time as the stay is granted and directed the defendant to file the stay order by next adjournment and no stay order copy filed. Hence, this court proceeded with the matter. So the matter was posted to 21.09.2021. On that day 7 OS No. 176 of 2011 there was no representation by the defendant and in those circumstances the stay granted on 01.07.2011 was vacated and posted to 05.10.2021 for written statement. On that day also there was no representation by the defendant, as such posted to plaintiffs evidence.

4.Meanwhile the plaintiff became company as such plaint was amended. Thereafter Pw.1 examined and Exs A.1 to A.23 marked.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiffs and he supported the plaintiff case by relying on the evidence of Pw.1 and Exs A.1 to A.23.

6.Exs A.1 & A.2 are the letter of authorization given to Pw.1 and the

Certificate of Incorporation of the plaintiff as company. Ex A.3 is the

Registered certificate of the plaintiff when it was a will. Those documents are proving that earlier the plaintiff was a partnership firm and later it was incorporated as company after filing of the suit. Ex A.4 to A.18 are filed to show that for the purpose of advertising the plaintiff, the plaintiff incurred expenditure for paper publication and further bank statements and challans are filed to show that the customers purchased jewellery and precious stones from the plaintiff. Exs A.19 to A.20 are the trade mark certificate copies filed to show that the plaintiffs name and registered trade mark. As per Ex A.19 “Sri Krishna Jewellers” is registered trade mark in the name of Pradeep Kumar Sivacharan and Ex

A.19 is regarding the name and logo and as per Ex A.20 the logo with feather symbol and the name “Sri Krishna Jewellers” was registered trade mark of the Sri Krishna Jewellers firm. Ex A.21 also showing that the words “Sri Krishna Jewellers’ and the design of the words are registered 8 OS No. 176 of 2011 trade mark of the “Sri Krishna Jewellers”. Ex A.22 is the legal notice sent by the plaintiff to the defendant and Ex A.23 is the postal acknowledgment. As mentioned earlier, in this case the defendant appeared through advocate, but did not file written statement on the ground that the defendant filed applications before the Intellectual

Property Appellate Tribunal. So the defendants have knowledge of the plaintiffs claim regarding the trade mark and allegation against the defendant that the defendant is running jewellery shop under name and style “Shri Krishna Jewellers“. Even though there is only one letter difference between the names of the plaintiff and defendant the phonetic pronunciation for both the names is one and the same and more over both the jewellery shops are from the same town. In those circumstances, as rightly submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff, if the defendant continue to use the word “Shri Krishna Jewellers”, it may mislead the people as if it is part and parcel of plaintiff company and thereby it will diminish the business of the plaintiff and further more in the event the defendant did not provide quality service, it will cast as shadow on the company of the plaintiff as well. As already the plaintiff obtained the name “Sri Krishna Jewellers”, the logo and the design of the letter as trademarks, the defendant using the same name just by adding “h” in three letters is nothing but playing deception to mimic name of the plaintiff and thereby to do the same business which the plaintiff is doing.

In those circumstances, the plaintiff is justified in seeking injunction restraining the defendant from using the trade name “Sri Krishna

Jewellers” and trademark “Sri Krishna Jewellers with feather logo”.

Further as already the defendant commenced the business in the name of “Shri Krishna Jewellers” mimicking the name of the plaintiff, the 9 OS No. 176 of 2011 plaintiff is justified in seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendant from destroying all the material with the defendant in the name “Shri Krishna Jewellers” and in the name “Shri Krishna Jewellers with

Feather logo” including the digital data regarding the same. So far as damages of Rs.One crore in the plaint are concerned, on this point the plaintiff did not adduce any evidence as what the business was done by the defendant and apart from what is the profits earned by the defendant, as such no damages can be awarded in this suit.

7.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs.

1. Perpetual injunction granted restraining the defendant from using the words “Shri Krishna Jewellers” and from using “Shri Krishna

Jewellers and feather logo” .

2. Mandatory injunction is granted directing the defendant to destroy all the material including broacher and leaflets, pamphlets, advertisements or digital data and published form containing trade mark “Shri Krishna Jewellers” and the design “Shri Krishna

Jewellers with Feather Logo”. 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the court on this the 11th day of February, 2022.

Sd/­ (K.Kalyan Chakravarthy) III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For the Plaintiff : 

Pw.1 : Nischal Trivedi 10 OS No. 176 of 2011

Documents Marked For the Plaintiff :

Ex A.1 : The copy of minutes of Board of Directors dt.23­11­2021.

Ex A.2 : The copy of Certificate of Incorporation 

Ex A.3 : The copy of Form­A given Sec.59 of Partnership Act

Ex A.4 : The Ledger copy for the period 01­4­2010 to 28­2­2011, 01­4­ 2009 to 31­3­2010.01­4­2008 to 31­3­2009, 01­4­2007 to 31­3­2008 and 01­4­2007 to 25­2­2011 

Ex A.5 : True copy of 17 Invoices relating to the paper publication and advertisement in channels.

Ex A.6 : The true copy of statement of account for the period from 14­2­ 2011 to 09­3­2011 of Canara Bank . 

Ex A.7 : The True copy of statement of account for the period from 08­2­ 2011 to 14­2­2011 of Canara Bank.

Ex A.8 : True copy of statement of account from 26­1­2011 to 27­1­2011 of HDFC Bank. 

Ex A.9 : True copy of statement of account from 17­1­2011 to 08­2­2011 of Canara Bank 

Ex A.10 : True copy of statement of account of­18­1­2011,11­1­2011, from 09­1­2011 to 10­1­2011 of HDFC bank 

Ex A.11 : True copy of statement of account for period from 20­11­2010 to 07­12­2010 of Canara bank 

Ex A.12 : True copy of statement of account for period from 11­11­2010 to 22­11­2010,01­10­2010 to 11­11­2010 of Canara bank.

Ex A.13 : True copy of statement of account for period from 02­10­2010 to 04­10­2010,14­8­2010, from 08­8­2010 to 09­10­2010 of HDFC bank

Ex A.14 : True copy of statement of account for period from 16­09­2010 to 01­10­2010,11­06­2010 to 19­6­2010 of Canara bank 

Ex A.15 : True copy of statement of account for period from 01­06­2010 to 11­7­2010,

Ex A.16 : True copy of statement of account for period from 18­06­2010 to 08­7­2010 and from 27­5­2010 to 11­6­2010 of Canara Bank

Ex A.17 : True copy of statement of account for period from 01­05­2010 to 31­5­2010,

Ex A.18 : True copies of 27 debit vouchers 

Ex A.19 : The copy of Certificate of registration No.1283067 given under

Trademarks Act 11 OS No. 176 of 2011

Ex A.20 : The copy of Certificate of registration No.1283068 given under

Trademarks Act

Ex A.21 : The copy of Certificate of registration No.1283069 given under

Trademarks Act 

Ex A.22 : The notice dt.23­2­2011 along with postal receipts

Ex A.23 : Two postal acknowledgements 

Sd/­ (K.Kalyan Chakravarthy) III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

Fair copy

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,

AT: HYDERABAD

Monday, this the 26 th day of June, 2023

PRESENT: SRI. K. PRABHAKARA RAO II Additional Chief Judge

M.V.O.P.No. 250 of 2017

Between:

1.D. Amaravahti W/o. Late Ramana, Aged about 35 years, Occ:House wife.

2.D. Srinivasa Rao S/o. Late Ramana, Aged about 18 years, Oc:Student.

3.D. Santhoshi D/o. Late Ramana, Aged about 16 years, Occ:Student.

(Petitioner No.3 is being minor rep. by her mother and natural guardian i.e. Petitioner No.1 herein)

All are R/o.16-2-141/2, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

..Petitioners

AND

1)A. Ravi S/o. A. Srihari, Aged major, Occ:Business, R/o.6/56, Komeru Bazar, Ashwaraopet, Khammam-507301.

2)United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Divisional Manager, TP Hub, 2nd floor, Church building, Ramkoti, Hyderabad. (Policy No.1506823115P111694304 valid from 5-1-2016 to 4-1-2017)

3)Niranjandas Chall S/o. Janardhan, Aged major, Occ:Driver, R/o.Ashwaraopet, Khammam-507301.

…Respondents

This petition came for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of

Sri. K. Anand Reddy, Advocate for Petitioners and Sri. K. Rudrappa, Advocate for

Respondent No.2 and Respondents No.1 and 3 remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:

Page 2 of 11 Fair copy MVOP 250 of 2017 II ACJ CCC Hyderabad

Dt: 26-6-2023

:: O R D E R ::

1.The Petitioner No.1 is wife, Petitioners No.2 and 3 are children of deceased

Ramana, filed this claim petition by seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and to direct the Respondents No.1 to 3 to pay the said amount to the Petitioners jointly and severally with costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

2.On 15-12-2016 at about 1.30 hours, the deceased by name D. Ramana was proceeding on Maxi Trolley bearing No.AP-30Y-7458, as a labour from Hyderabad to

Vijayanagaram along with driver, when they reached outskirts of Choutuppal, infront of Srini Company, at that time one Lorry bearing No.AP-20U-5757 was parked in middle of the road, without showing any signal and indication son NH-65, due to which the deceased Trolley was dashed from back side of the Lorry, due to which the deceased and driver of the Trolley was sustained bleeding fractur injuries all over the body and died on the spot, immediately they were shifted to Government hospital

Chutuppal for conduct Inquest and postmortem.

Page 3 of 11 Fair copy MVOP 250 of 2017 II ACJ CCC Hyderabad

Dt: 26-6-2023

3.It was further alleged that the said accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent parking of the driver of the crime vehicle Lorry bearing No.AP-20U-5757, for the above said incident, the Police Choutuppal has registered a case in 303/2016.

4.It is further averred by the Petitioners that the deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 38 years at the time at the time his premature death and he was doing a labour work and he used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month, contribute the same to the maintenance of his family. Due to sudden death of the deceased D. Ramana the

Petitioners are put to great hardship and lost their source of income, loss of love and affection.

5.They further averred that the Respondent No.1 is owner, Respondent No.2 is the insurer and Respondent No.3 is the driver of the above said crime vehicle i.e. Lorry bearing No. AP-20U-5757, as such all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.

6.Respondents No.1 and 3 remained exparte.

7.Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the material allegations levelled in the claim petition including the manner of accident, registration of crime, age, income of deceased and involvement of the crime vehicle i.e. Lorry bearing No. AP-20U-5757 in

Page 4 of 11 Fair copy MVOP 250 of 2017 II ACJ CCC Hyderabad

Dt: 26-6-2023

the accident. The Respondent No.2 denies for want of confirmation about that this

Respondent No.2 issued any insurance policy for the Lorry bearing No. AP-20U-5757, covering the period of the accident and the Petitioners are strict proof of the same. It was further stated that the crime vehicle is not having valid registration, permit and not worthy for plying on the road. The Respondent No.2 also denied the age and income of the deceased at the time of accident and finally requested to dismiss the claim petition against it.

8.As the conciliations efforts are not fruitful between the parties, this Court framed the following issues for trial.

(1)Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the

Lorry bearing No. AP-20U-5757 causing death of Ramana?

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

(3)To what relief?

9.During the trial PWs 1 and 2 examined on behalf of the Petitioners and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Later, Ex.B1 insurance policy of the crime vehicle i.e. Lorry

Page 5 of 11 Fair copy MVOP 250 of 2017 II ACJ CCC Hyderabad

Dt: 26-6-2023

bearing No. AP-20U-5757 marked on behalf of the Respondent No.2 insurance company but there is no oral evidence.

10.Heard on both sides.

Issue No.1:-

11.During the chief examination of PW1/Petitioner No.1, she reiterated the claim petition averments and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and deposed that, her husband Late

D. Ramana died in a road traffic accident occurred on 15-12-2016 at about 1.30 A.M.

due rash and negligent parking of Lorry bearing No. AP-20U-5757, which was parked in middle of the road without showing any signal and indications on NH-65, as a result the Maxi Trolley driving by the deceased and others dashed, it resulted the death of the deceased D. Ramana, for which the SHO PS Choutuppal has registered Ex.A1 FIR against the driver of the crime vehicle and filed Ex.A2 charge sheet against the

Respondent No.3 i.e. driver of the crime vehicle for the offence punishable under section 304-A and 337 IPC. She also got marked Ex.A3 and A4 to show that her husband died in a road traffic accident. Exs.A5 and A6 showing the inspection of the crime vehicle by the Motor Vehicle Inspector.

Page 6 of 11 Fair copy MVOP 250 of 2017 II ACJ CCC Hyderabad

Dt: 26-6-2023

12.PW2 is one of the eye witness and injured in the said accident also deposed that the accident was occurred due to the wrong parking of Lorry bearing AP-20U-5757 in the middle of the road without showing any signal and indications, as a result the deceased D. Ramana was died and others received injuries. In his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Maxi Trolley i.e. DCM Van.

13.The evidence of PW1 and P2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A6 showing the involvement of the crime vehicle bearing No. AP-20U-5757 in the accident and further deposed that the deceased D. Ramana died due to negligent act of the Respondent

No.3 being the driver of the crime vehicle.

14.Except marking of the Ex.B1 insurance policy, the Respondent No.2 Insurance

Company did not place any material before the Court contra to the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Exs.A1 to A6. Hence, the issue No.1 is held in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondents.

Issue No.2:-

15.As per the evidence of PW1, her husband doing labour work and earning income of Rs.9,000/- per month, it was contributed to the maintenance of the family,

Page 7 of 11 Fair copy MVOP 250 of 2017 II ACJ CCC Hyderabad

Dt: 26-6-2023

due to sudden death of her husband the Petitioners put to hardship and loss, at the time of death her husband age was 38 years. The Petitioners did not place any material

before the Court to show the age and income of the deceased as alleged above.

However, in Ex.A2 charge sheet, Ex.A3 Inquest report and Ex.A4 postmortem examination report the age of the deceased D. Ramana, shown as 40 years and his occupation shown as Coolie. Having considered the same, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased was a coolie and his monthly income was assessed @ Rs.7,500/- per month. Since, the age of the deceased was 40 years the appropriate multiplier is 15 as per the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarala Varma case. The

Petitioner No.1 being wife and Petitioners No.2 and 3 are children of deceased they entitled spouse and parental consortium @ Rs.44,000/- each.

16.Having considered the above said facts, legal position this Court calculate the compensation payable to the Petitioners as follows:

S.No. DescriptionCalculationAmount in Rs.

aIncome per month 7,500/- bAdd:Future prospects @ 25% on 7,500/-7,500 x 25%= as per Pranay Sethi case1,875/- cIncome per annum (7500 + 1875) 1,12,500/- 9375 x 12 dLess:1/3rd Personal Expenses on 1,12,500 x 1/375,000/- 1,12,500/-=37,500/- (112500 – 37500=75000/-)

Page 8 of 11 Fair copy MVOP 250 of 2017 II ACJ CCC Hyderabad

Dt: 26-6-2023

eThe deceased is a aged about 40 years the15 Multiplier is 15 as per SarlaVarma case fCompensation on applying multiplier75,000 x 1511,25,000/- gLoss of spouse and parental consortium1,32,000/- @ Rs.44000/- each (Petitioners No.1 to 3) hFuneral Expenses16,500/- iLoss of estate16,500/- jTransport charges5,000/-

Total compensation (f+g+h+i+j) 12,95,000/-

17.As on the date of accident the Ex.B1 policy was inforce, the deceased and

Petitioners are third parties to it, hence the Respondent No.2 insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners as ordered above. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issue No.3:-

18.In the result, this petition is partly allowed with proportionate cost by awarding compensation amount of Rs.12,95,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Ninety

Five Thousand only) directing the Respondents No.1 to 3 to pay the above said compensation amount jointly and severally to the Petitioner with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.

Page 9 of 11 Fair copy MVOP 250 of 2017 II ACJ CCC Hyderabad

Dt: 26-6-2023

The respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the above said compensation amount of Rs.12,95,000/- with interest within 45 days from the date of this Award.

On depositing the above said compensation amount it was apportioned among the petitioners as follows-

The petitioner No.1 is entitled compensation of Rs.6,95,000/- out of which she entitled to receive Rs.4,95,000/- with interest, the remaining amount of Rs2,00,000/- shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any nationalized Bank for a period of two years.

The petitioner No.2 is entitled compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- out of which he entitled to receive Rs.2,00,000/- with interest, the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any nationalized Bank for a period of two years.

Petitioner No.3 is entitled compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Petitioner

No.3 is being minor, her compensation amount shall be kept in FDR in any nationalized bank till she attaining the age of majority. The Petitioner No.1 is

Page 10 of 11 Fair copy MVOP 250 of 2017 II ACJ CCC Hyderabad

Dt: 26-6-2023

entitled to draw interest on every year in respect of the fixed deposit amount of

Petitioner No.3.

The Advocate fee is fixed Rs.3,000/-.

The petitioners are directed to pay Court Fee on awarded compensation.

Dictated to Stenographer G-I, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 26 thday of June, 2023.

Sd/-

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS:

PW1:D. Amaravathi.--None-- PW2:R. Umashankar.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR along with complaint in Crime No.303/2016 dated 15- 12-2016 of PS Choutuppal, U/sec.304(A) of IPC.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge sheet filed by police in Crime No.303/2016 U/sec.304(A) of IPC.

Ex.A3: Certified copy inquest report of the deceased Dharmana Ramana S/o. Narsimha, Age 40 years, Occ:Kooli, R/o.Tekkalipadu Village, Srikakulam District.

Page 11 of 11 Fair copy MVOP 250 of 2017 II ACJ CCC Hyderabad

Dt: 26-6-2023

Ex.A4: Certified copy of Post Mortem Examination report of deceased Dharmana Ramana S/o. Narsimha, Age 40 years, Occ:Kooli, R/o.Tekkalipadu Village, Srikakulam District.

Ex.A5: Certified copy of MVI report in Crime No.303/2016 of Ps. Choutuppal.

EX.A6: Certified copy of form No.54 issued by S.I. of Police P.S. Choutuppal in Crime No.303/2016.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.B1: Certified copy of insurance policy.

Sd/-

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

Dated: This the 17th day of November, 2021

PRESENT : Smt.Renuka Yara,

CHIEF JUDGE

Tr.O.P. No. 50 of 2021

Between:

Samir Rafiq Ahmed S/o. Noor Ahmed.…Petitioner.

And

1. Mohd. Abdul Rahman S/o. Late Md. Jameel Ur Rahman.

2. Razia Safdar W/o. Late Md. Jameel Ur Rahman

...Respondents.

This Petition is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. by the petitioner praying that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

a) Allow the OP and order transferring O.S. No. 265 of 2021 on the file of the Hon’ble XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to be tried along with O.S. No. 187 of 2020 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for conducting joint or simultaneous trail and also for adjudicating respective claims of both the parties.

b) Allow the costs of the OP.

c) Grant such further relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner.

This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Md.Samiuddin, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri M/s.Mohammed Aleemullah, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 having set exparte and thus this Court made the following:

D O C K E T O R D E R

Heard both counsels. Both counsels agreed that not only the suits referred in this

Transfer OP, ie., OS No.187 of 2020 and OS No.265 of 2021 but two other suits in OS

No.246/2020 and OS No.247 of 2020 are filed between same parties for same subject matter. Both counsels agreed for transfer of all four suits to one court. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed withdrawing OS. No.265 of 2021 from the file of the learned XXVI Additional Chief Judge, and transferring the same to the file of the learned III

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In addition, the suits in OS No.246 of

2020 and 247 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad are withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned III Additional ...Contd.

: : 2 : :

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to be tried along with OS No.187 of 2020 and OS

No.265 of 2021 either jointly or separately. The learned XXVI Additional Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad shall get the records in their court ie., OS No. 265 of 2021, OS No.246 of 2020 and OS No.247 of 2020, indexed and transmit the same to the court of the learned

III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad within 10 days of receipt of this

Order.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of November, 2021.

CHIEF JUDGE,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Copy communicated to:

1. XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court.

2. III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court.

3. VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court.

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

Dated: This the 12th day of November, 2021

PRESENT : Sri. K.Prabhakara Rao, II Additional Chief Judge, FAC : Chief Judge.

Tr.O.P. No. 35 of 2019

Between:

1. Nandlal Yadav died per L.Rs. P2 to P6.

2. Smt.Saraswati Bai W/o. Nandlal Yadav.

3. Maniklal Yadav S/o. Nandlal Yadav.

4. Tilak Chand Yadav S/o. Nandlal Yadav.

5. Shatrughan Yadav S/o. Nandlal Yadav.

6. Smt. Vimala D/o. Nandlal Yadav....Petitioners.

And

1. MD. Amjad S/o. Late Rijaz Ahmed.

2. M.A.Jeelani (died) (per Lrs R3 to R12)

3. Zaheeda Begum W/o. Late M.A.Jeelani.

4. M.A. Ghouse S/o. M.A. Jeelani.

5. M.A. Nayeem S/o. Late M. A. Jeelani.

6. M.A. Aleem S/o. Late M.A. Jeelani.

7. M.A. Kaleem S/o. Late M.A. Jeelani.

8. M.A.Shakeel S/o. Late M.A. Jeelani.

9. Naseem Fatima D/o. Late M.A.Jeelani.

10. Farheen Fatima D/o. Late M.A. Jeelani.

11. Kauser Fatima D/o. Late M.A. Jeelani.

12. Sana Fatima D/o. Late M.A. Jeelani.

13. Goverdhan Yadav S/o. Mukundlal Yadav.

14. Shailaja Yadav D/o. Mukundlal Yadav.

15. Shilpa Yadav D/o. Mukundlal Yadav.

16. Bankatlal Yadav S/o. Late Chandra Bhanu Yadav.

17. Dhanraj Yadav S/o. Late Chandra Bhanu Yadav.

18. Mukundlal Yadav S/o. Late Chandra Bhanu Yadav.

19. Misrilal S/o. Not known to the plaintiffs.

20. Sriram Upadhayey S/o. Late Satyanarayana Upadhayey.

21. Smt. Kekai Bai (Dead)

22. Smt. Shanta Bai W/o. Kanhaiyalal Yadav.

23. Smt. Bela Bai W/o. Prakash Yadav.

24. Smt. Dhanlaxmi Bai W/o. Bhagat Laxminarayan Yadav.

25. Bhagat Shyamlal Yadav (Dead)

26. B. Mulchand Yadav S/o. B.Shyamlal Yadav.

27. B.Jaikishan Yadav S/o. B.Shyamlal Yadav.

28. Smt. Meena Bai W/o. Rajendra Prasad Yadav.

29. Smt. Shanno Bai W/o. Prakash.

30. Smt. Babloo Bai W/o. Rajesh....Respondents.

This Petition is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. by the Petitioners praying this Court to transfer the suit in O.S. No. 488 of 2008 from the file of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad for disposal along with suit in O.S. No.686 of 2010 and pass such other order or orders.

This petition is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri J. Shanker, Advocate for the Petitioners, Sri MD. Iftekar Ali, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4, 6 to 8 and 11, Sri Habeeb Jaffar Bin Hussain, Advocate for Respondent No.17, Respondent Nos. 13 to 16, 18, 23, 24, 26 to 29 having set exparte and Respondent Nos.2, 25 were died as per cause title and this Court made the following :

O R D E R

Petitioners called absent. No representation even for this adjournment. Costs not paid. It is showing that the petitioners are not showing any interest in prosecuting the present petition, in such circumstances there is no other option before this court except passing the next step. Accordingly this OP is dismissed for default.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of November, 2021.

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

FAC : CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

Dated: This the 12th day of November, 2021

PRESENT : Sri. K.Prabhakara Rao, II Additional Chief Judge, FAC : Chief Judge.

Tr.O.P. No. 36 of 2019

Between:

1. Nandlal Yadav died per L.Rs. P2 to P6.

2. Smt.Saraswati Bai W/o. Nandlal Yadav.

3. Maniklal Yadav S/o. Nandlal Yadav.

4. Tilak Chand Yadav S/o. Nandlal Yadav.

5. Shatrughan Yadav S/o. Nandlal Yadav.

6. Smt. Vimala D/o. Nandlal Yadav.

...Petitioners.

And

1. Ramkishan Yadav S/o. Bankatlal Yadav.

2. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner.

3. Govardhan Yadav S/o. Mukundlal Yadav.

4. Shailaja Yadav D/o. Mukundlal Yadav.

5. Shilpa Yadav D/o. Mukundlal Yadav.

6. Bankatlal Yadav S/o. Late Chandra Bhanu Yadav.

7. Dhanraj Yadav S/o. Late Chandra Bhanu Yadav.

8. Mukundlal Yadav S/o. Late Chandra Bhanu Yadav.

9. M.A.Jeelani (died).

10. MD. Amjad S/o. Late Rijaz Ahmed.

11. Misrilal S/o. Not known to the plaintiffs.

12. Sriram Upadhayey S/o. Late Satyanarayana Upadhayey.

13. Smt. Kekai Bai (Dead)

14. Smt. Shanta Bai W/o. Kanhaiyalal Yadav.

15. Smt. Bela Bai W/o. Prakash Yadav.

16. Smt. Dhanlaxmi Bai W/o. Bhagat Laxminarayan Yadav.

17. Bhagat Shyamlal Yadav (Dead) (Lrs R18 to R21)

18. B. Mulchand Yadav S/o. B.Shyamlal Yadav.

19. B.Jaikishan Yadav S/o. B.Shyamlal Yadav.

20. Smt. Meena Bai W/o. Rajendra Prasad Yadav.

21. Smt. Shanno Bai W/o. Prakash.

22. Smt. Babloo Bai W/o. Rajesh.

...Respondents.

This Petition is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. by the Petitioners praying this Court to transfer the suit in O.S. No. 875 of 2015 from the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to the file of II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad for disposal along with suit in O.S. No.686 of 2010 and pass such other order or orders.

This petition is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri J. Shanker, Advocate for the Petitioners, Sri Shyam S. Agarwal, Advocate for Respondent No.1, Sri Habeeb Jaffar Bin Hussain, Advocate for Respondent No.7, Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.6, Respondent No.8, Respondent No.15, Respondent No.18 to Respondent No.21 having set exparte and Respondent Nos.9, 13, 17 were died as per cause title and this Court made the following :

O R D E R

Petitioners called absent. No representation even for this adjournment. Costs not paid. It is showing that the petitioners are not showing any interest in prosecuting the present petition, in such circumstances there is no other option before this court except passing the next step. Accordingly this OP is dismissed for default.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of November, 2021.

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

FAC : CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.