K Prabhakara Rao

1 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, SANGAREDDY

FRIDAY, THE 19th DAY OF APRIL, 2024

Present: Sri K. Prabhakara Rao, Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- -Cum Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 20 22

Between:-

1. Sumaya Begum, W/o: Syed Ilyas, Aged about: 21 years, Occ: House Hold

2. Syed Azlaan, S/o: Syed Ilyas, Age: One Month, Occ: Nil

3. Syed Saleem, S/o: Syed Khaseem, Aged about: 52 years, Occ: Labour

4. Ahmadi Begum, W/o: Syed Saleem, Aged about: 46 years, Occ: House wife

5. Samreen Begum, D/o: Syed Saleem, Age: 20 years, Occ: Nil

6. Syed Nayeem, S/o: Syed Saleem, Age: 16 years, Occ: Student

Claimant Nos. 2 and 6 are minors, representing under guardianship of Claimant No. 1

All are R/o: H.No. 5-3-105/1, Shanthi Nagar, Zaheerabad Town, Sangareddy District ---Claimants A N D 2 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022

1. Ismail Mohammad, S/o: Mohd. Ayub Khan, Age: Major, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No. 5-6-120/31, Kanthareddy Colony, Zaheerabad Town, Sangareddy District

2. The Manager, MAGMA HDI General Insurance Company Limited No. 202, II Floor, Mandanna Towers, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

Policy No. P0022300028/4103/102863, Valid from 01.01.2022 to 31.12.2022 ---Respondents

This petition came up before me for final hearing on 16.04.2024 in the presence of Sri Ch. Prakash,Advocate for the Claimants, Sri P. Bal Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No. 2andRespondent No. 1 was set ex parte, upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:-

A W A R D

1.This is an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2.The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is wife, petitioner

No. 2 is minor son, petitioner No. 3 is father, petitioner No. 4 is mother, petitioner No. 5 is daughter and petitioner No. 6 is minor brother of deceased-Syed Ilyas. The deceased was aged 26 years and earning

Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a driver. He was contributing his 3 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022 earnings to the petitioners and the petitioners are dependent on him.

On 08.02.2022 the deceased was driving the crime vehicle i.e., Ashok

Leyland Goods Carriage Tempo vehicle bearing No. TS 15 UC 0088 and he is proceeding from Zaheerabad to Waddi village in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, when he reached near Waddi cross road, he lost control over the vehicle, as such the vehicle turned turtle and he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bidar, from there he was referred to Osmania Hospital at Hyderabad for higher treatment and there he died while undergoing treatment after two days.

3.Police of Market Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 7 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 279 and 338-A of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I.P.C) against the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., deceased herein and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against him for the offence under Sections 279, 304 (A) of

I.P.C. The vehicle is owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent

No. 2, therefore respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

4 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022

4.The notice of respondent No. 1 was returned unclaimed, hence in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran v.

Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and others [1999 (7) SCC 510], it was deemed as served and due to non-appearance of respondent No. 1, he was set ex parte, whereas respondent No. 2 entered their appearance through their counsel and filed counter.

5.Respondent No. 2 in their counter denied the petition averments and contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the deceased himself, thus the deceased contributed for the accident as such he is not entitled for any compensation from this respondent. The petitioners are called upon to strict proof that deceased was having valid and subsisting driving license at the time of the accident. The said vehicle was not road worthy to ply as the terms of the policy were violated. The claim as to the manner in which the accident took place, the age, occupation and income were all denied.

6.Respondent No. 2 in their counter relied on the rulings of the

Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 4427 of 2010

(MV) dated 12.07.2018 for awarding interest. Respondent No. 2 also relied 5 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022 on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi’s v. M/s.

Pest Control India Limited in (1995) ACC 281 (SC) and pleaded that interest should not be allowed on non-pecuniary losses and future earnings.

Respondent No. 2 is legally liable to deduct TDS vide Section 194(3) of the

Income Tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f., 01.06.2003 where the interest on the compensation exceeds Rs.50,000/- and the petitioner be directed to submit PAN number. The interest of the minors shall be clubbed in the proportionate share of their parent for deduction of tax.

7.This court upon examining the pleadings, framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident occurred on 08.02.2022 at about 16.30 hours near Waddi cross on Bidar – Zaheerabad road, occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of deceased who is driver of Ashok Leyland Goods Carriage Tempo vehicle bearing No. TS 15 UC 0088?

2. Whether the deceased Syed Ilyas died as a result of injuries sustained by him in the said accident?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so what is the quantum of compensation and from which of the respondents?

4. What relief?

6 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022

8.The petitioners in support of their case examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of respondent No. 2 R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked with consent.

9.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Now the issues are answered as under.

I S S U E Nos. 1 and 2:-

10.Petitioner No. 3 who is father of the deceased examined himself as

P.W.1 and reiterated the petition averments in his chief-affidavit.

11.It is the evidence of P.W.1 that 08.02.2022 the deceased was driving

Ashok Leyland Goods Carriage Tempo vehicle bearing No. TS 15 UC 0088 and proceeding from Zaheerabad to Waddi village in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed. That when he reached near Waddi cross road, he lost control over the said vehicle, as a result the vehicle turned turtle and he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over the body.

Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bidar, from there he was referred to Osmania Hospital at Hyderabad for higher treatment and there he died while undergoing treatment after two days.

7 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022

12.It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that the Police, Market registered a case against the driver of the said lorry who is none other than the deceased herein which was marked as Ex.A1. In support of their contention P.W.1 relied on the documents Exs.A1, A2, A4. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of

F.I.R, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge sheet and Ex.A4 is the certified copy of scene of offence panchanama. To prove that the deceased died in the said accident, he also filed Ex.A3-certified copy of inquest panchanama. On perusal of the said documents filed by the petitioners in

Ex.A2-charge sheet filed by the police, it was concluded that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer established that the accused who is deceased in this case has drove the Tempo vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed and when he reached near Wadi cross road, the said vehicle turned turtle, as a result the deceased who is driving the vehicle fell down and sustained grievous injuries and while he was undergoing treatment he died on 12.02.2022. The Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused; deceased herein as he has committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304 (A)of I.P.C.

8 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022

13.In order to substantiate their case, the petitioners examined P.W.2 who is said to be an eye witness to the accident. P.W.2 also deposed supporting the case of the petitioners regarding the manner in which the accident took place on 08.02.2022 and the deceased sustaining injuries in the said accident and as a result he succumbed to the injuries. During the cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 by respondent No. 2 counsel nothing worthwhile substance elicited to discredit the case of the petitioners.

14.On the other hand respondent No. 1did not choose to contest the case of the petitioners and he was set ex parte. Respondent No. 2 though filed counter stating several facts but however, respondent No. 3 is not disputing about the accident occurred on 08.02.2022. The police concerned issued F.I.R and filed Charge Sheet against the deceased after thorough investigation of the case. Further the Ex.A6-Motor Vehicles Inspector

Report also disclosing there are no mechanical defects to the crime vehicle.

15.Therefore, by the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with the documentary proof Ex.A1 to A4 and A6 it is clearly established that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Tempo vehicle by the deceased. It is also established that in the said accident, the 9 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022 deceased has sustained injuries and he died. Accordingly the issues are answered.

I S S U E No. 3 :-

16.Respondent No. 2 in his counter contended that the deceased himself contributed for the accident. In support of their contention they also examined R.W.1 their Legal Manager. The R.W.1 also deposed that the deceased himself contributed for his death and there is no third party to the accident, as such the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The Ex.A2 reveals that the Police Market after thorough investigation has filed charge sheet against the accused/deceased for the offence under Sections 279, 304 (A)of I.P.C., wherein the deceased was died while he was driving the Tempo vehicle bearing No. TS 15 UC 0088 as the said vehicle turned turtle. Having considered the same and the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 and 2 by marking Exs.A1 to A4 and A6, this court treated the present claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 i.e., Special Provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formulae basis. The alleged accident was took place on 08.02.2022, as such considering the second schedule appended to the 10 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this court notionally estimates the income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- per annum.

17.It is the case of the petitioners that the age of the deceased was 26 years at the time of his death in a motor accident that occurred on 08.02.2022. But Ex.A3-certified copy of Inquest Panchanama and

Ex.A5-certified copy of Post Mortem Examination Report discloses the age of the deceased as 25 years. Therefore, this court considers the age of the deceased as 25 years. Sincethe income of the deceased is fixed at

Rs.40,000/- per annum, following the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others [(2017) 16 SCC 680], 40% of his income is to be added towards future prospects. If so added the annual income of the deceased comes to

Rs.56,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + Rs.16,000/-).

18.For calculating the present loss of the deceased as per his income of

Rs.56,000/- per annum, 1/4th has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses since the number of dependents are six. After deducting 1/4th i.e., (Rs.56,000/- - Rs.14,000/-), the income of the deceased comes to

Rs.42,000/- per annum.

11 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022

19.Since the age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of his death, the applicable multiplier as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla

Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121] is 18. If the multiplicand of Rs.42,000/- is multiplied by applying the multiplier 18, (Rs.42,000/- x 18), the loss of dependency on account of the death of the deceased would be Rs.7,56,000/-.

20.To this sum, the following amount can be awarded under the standard heads.

LOSS OF CONSORTIUM:

A sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium can be awarded to petitioner No. 1 following the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inNational Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others.

LOSS OF ESTATE:

A sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate can be awarded to the petitioners following the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiain

National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others.

12 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022

FUNERAL EXPENSES:

A sum of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded to the petitioners towards funeral expenses following the ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others.

The petitioners are also entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses.

1.Loss of dependencyRs. 7,56,000-00

2.Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000-00

3.Loss of EstateRs. 15,000-00

4. Towards Funeral expensesRs. 15,000-00

5.Transport ExpensesRs. 5,000-00

TOTALRs. 8,31,000-00

21.Respondent No. 2 in their counter pleaded the deceased do not possess valid driving license at the time of the accident, as such the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation. However, to discredit the said version the petitioners through P.W.1 relied on Ex.A7-original driving 13 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022 license of the deceased, which clearly reveals that the deceased was having valid driving license as on the date of the accident. Further respondent

No. 2 in their counter also pleaded regarding TDS on the compensation awarded to the petitioners. However, it is a well settled principle of law that any compensation awarded for death of a person or bodily injury suffered in a vehicular accident is damages and cannot be called income. Thus, the claim amount is non-taxable irrespective of whether the claim is a major or a minor one. In the same manner the interest awarded on compensation in motor accident cases is not liable to be taxed under the Income Tax Act 1961.

22.Thus in all, the petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of

Rs.8,31,000/- which is a fair and just and reasonable award in the circumstances of the case.

Regarding Liability:-

23.Since respondent No. 1 was the owner of the Tempo vehicle bearing

No. TS 15 UC 0088, there exists employer and employee relationship between the deceased and respondent No. 1, further respondent No. 2 was 14 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022 the insurer of the said Tempo vehicle, therefore respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

ISSUE No. 4 :-

24.In the result, the petition is partly allowed, with costs directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the petitioners a sum of Rs.8,31,000/- towards compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim till date of realization.

In view of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in (1). Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Limited v. Union of

India and others [Writ Petition (Civil) 534/2020 dated 16.03.2021] and (2). Civil Appeal No. 9322 of 2022 arising out of SLP (C) No. 32448 of 2018 between Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport

Corporation & Others dated 15.12.2022, therespondents are directed to deposit the said amount in D.D.O Account with State Bank of India

Account bearing No. 41383323962, CIF No. 91063263732, IFSC Code:

SBIN0020107, Branch Sangareddy (20107), Opposite District Court 15 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022

Complex in the name of Chairman MACT-cum-Principal District Judge,

Sangareddy within 30 days.

Upon deposit out of the total compensation, petitioner No. 1 (wife) is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- along with total interest and costs and petitioner No. 1 is at liberty to withdraw the entire amount along with total costs and interest. Petitioner No. 3 (father) and Petitioner No. 4 (mother) are each entitled to Rs.1,60,000/- and they are entitled to receive the said amount immediately. Petitioner No. 5 (daughter) is entitled to

Rs.1,60,000/- and she is at liberty to receive the said amount immediately.

Petitioner No. 2 (minor son) is entitled to Rs.1,60,000/-. Petitioner No. 6 (minor brother) is entitled to Rs.31,000/-. Since petitioner Nos. 2 and 6 are minors the share of amount awarded to petitioner Nos. 2 and 6 shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank till they attain the age of majority, on attaining the age of majority they are entitled to receive the same with the permission of the court along with accrued interest thereon.

16 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022

The rest of the M.V.O.P claims is dismissed without costs. Office is directed to check the court fees paid and prepare decree after deposit of court fee. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of April, 2024.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: WITNESS EXAMINED:

FOR CLAIMANTS: FOR RESPONDENT No. 2

P.W.1:Syed Saleem: R.W.1: A. Mahesh

P.W.2:Majid Ahmed

P.W.3:Mohammed Ismail

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

FOR CLAIMANTS:

Ex.A1:Certified copy of FIR and complaint along with English Translation in Crime No. 7 of 2022 of P.S. Market under Section 279, 338 I.P.C Ex.A2:Certified copy of Charge Sheet along with English Translation in Crime No. 7 of 2022 of P.S. Market under Section 279, 304-A I.P.C 17 of 17 M.V.O.P. No. 55 of 2022

Ex.A3:Certified copy of Inquest Panchanama along with English Translation in Crime No. 7 of 2022 of P.S. Market under Section 279, 304-A I.P.C Ex.A4:Certified copy of Scene of offence panchanama along with English Translation in Crime No. 7 of 2022 of P.S. Market under Section 279, 338 I.P.C Ex.A5:Certified copy of Post Mortem Examination Report of deceased Syed Ilyas Ex.A6:Certified copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector Report Ex.A7:Original Driving License of deceased Syed Ilyas

FOR RESPONDENT No. 2 :

Ex.B1:Insurance Policy

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy

1 of 7 G.W.O.P. No. 2 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, SANGAREDDY

FRIDAY, THE 19th DAY OF APRIL, 2024

PRESENT:Sri K. Prabhakara Rao,

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

G.W.O.P. No. 2 of 2024

Between:-

Smt. G. Bhaneswary, W/o: Late Gopal, Aged about: 44 years, Occ: House hold, R/o: H.No. 5- 4-1522, Plot No. 10, Sarada Nagar, Phase-2, Vanasthalipuram, Rangareddy District, Presently residing at MIG, Vidyuth Nagar, BHEL, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District

In the matter of minor:-

Master Sai Kiran, S/o: Late Gopal, Aged about: 11 years, Occ: Student

...Petitioner

A N D

To whomsoever it may concern

...Respondent

This petition came up before me for final hearing on 18.04.2024 in the presence of Sri R. Srinivas,Counsel for the Petitioner and No objections received on behalf of the Respondent, having perused the material on record, having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and having stood over for consideration, the Court made the following:- 2 of 7 G.W.O.P. No. 2 of 2024

O R D E R

1. This application filed under Sections 8, 10 and 29 of the

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking permission of the court to appoint petitioner as guardian of the minor and to alienate the minor’s property.

2.The case of the petitioner is that she is the natural mother of the minor namely Sai Kiran. The paternal grand father of the minor namely G. Ramji, has acquired plot bearing No. 4058, admeasuring 200 square yards, situated at HUDA sanctioned layout, BHEL, MIG

Colony, Phase-II in Sy. No. 193P, 194P, 197P and 208P, situated at

Manmole village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District; erstwhile Medak District vide document bearing No. 4335 of 2002

dated 17.07.2002 and after purchase of the said plot, he built up

666.0 square feets on the ground floor and 666.0 square feets on the first floor, totally admeasuring 1332.0 square feets (hereinafter referred as petition schedule property). Thereafter he executed a registered Will deed vide document bearing No. 30 of 2018 dated 28.06.2018, Book No. 3 in favour of his wife, two sons, one daughter and the minor herein (since the father of the minor was died on 3 of 7 G.W.O.P. No. 2 of 2024 24.01.2012) in respect of the said property. Thus after execution of the said Will deed all his above family members have acquired the petition schedule property with equal shares i.e., 40 square yards of undivided share of land with built up area of 266.4 square feet.

3.The petitioner submits that after execution of the said Will deed the paternal grandfather of the minor died on 16.05.2021 and paternal grandmother of the minor was also died on 26.05.2021.

As such after the death of the paternal grandmother of the minor, her share of above property was devolved upon her two sons, one daughter and the minor herein.

4.The petitioner further submits that after the death of the father, grandfather and grandmother of the minor, the petitioner being the natural mother is looking after the welfare of the minor by spending the education and other expenses of the minor. The petitioner is household and she is not having any independent source of income, as such she is facing difficulty to meet the said expenditure. The shareholders of the minor have decided to sell the subject property, therefore the petitioner also intends to sell the share of minor in the said property in order to meet his expenses. Therefore she is 4 of 7 G.W.O.P. No. 2 of 2024 seeking permission of the court to alienate the petition schedule property pertaining to the share of the minor. If the petitioner is not permitted to sell the share pertaining to the share of the minor, it will cause her undue hardship and irreparable loss. Hence, the petition.

5.General Publication was filed calling objections regarding the claim of the petitioner. In spite of the same none were appeared by objecting the claim of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the petitioner is entitled to alienate the petition

schedule property pertaining to the share of the minor for the

best interest of the minor child as prayed for?

P O I N T:-

8.It is the case of the petitioner that she is a household and she do not have any independent source of income as such she is facing difficulty to provide education and bear other expenses of the minor.

Further the other shareholders of the minor have decided to sell the 5 of 7 G.W.O.P. No. 2 of 2024 petition schedule property to prospective purchasers. As such she is intending to sell the petition schedule property pertaining to the share of the minor to prospective purchasers and utilize the sale proceeds for the education and welfare of the minor. In support of her contention the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and filed

Exs.P1 to P9. Having gone through the said oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner, it was established that the minor has share in the petition schedule property and except the petition schedule property there is no other source of income to the petitioner for meeting the education and other expenses of the minor, as such the petitioner being the natural mother of the mother and looking after the care and welfare of the minor has no adverse interest against the minor. Even third parties not challenged the petitioner claim. Now-a-days the school fees became abnormal, the cost of living is became high. Considering these circumstances, this court is inclined to permit the petitioner to sell the petition schedule property pertaining to the share of the minor subject to certain conditions.

6 of 7 G.W.O.P. No. 2 of 2024

9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is appointed as guardian of minor child namely Master Sai Kiran and permitted to sell the petition schedule property pertaining to the share of the minor subject to the following conditions:- (1) The petitioner is permitted to sell the petition schedule property for the best price in the market and file the copy of sale deed in the court within (30) days from the date of registration of the sale deed.

(2) The sale proceeds shall be invested in interest bearing Fixed

Deposit in the name of the minor in any Nationalized Bank and submit the copy of FDR within (30) days from the date of FDR.

(3) The proceeds of the sale shall be spent only for the education and welfare of the minor and the principal shall be withdrawn only with the permission of the court.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of April,

2024.

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy 7 of 7 G.W.O.P. No. 2 of 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No.of witnesses examined on behalf of

Petitioner Respondent

P.W.1: Smt. G. Bhaneswary -None-

Documents marked on behalf of Petitioner

Ex.P1: Certified copy of Sale Deed document No. 4335 of 2002

dated 17.07.2002

Ex.P2: Original Will Deed document No. 30 of 2018 dated 28.06.2018 Ex.P3: Certified copy of Death Certificate of Late Ramji Ex.P4: Attested copy of Death Certificate of Meena Kumari Ex.P5: Certified copy of Death Certificate of Late G. Gopal Ex.P6: Certified copy of Birth Certificate of minor Ex.P7: Compared copy of Aadhar card of minor Ex.P8: Compared copy of Aadhar card of petitioner Ex.P9: Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate of Plot bearing No. 4058

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

1 of 4 D.O.P. No. 6 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, SANGAREDDY

THURSDAY, THE 18th DAY OF APRIL, 2024

PRESENT: Sri K. Prabhakara Rao,

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy

D.O.P. No. 6 of 2024

Between:-

1.Mrs. Rathna Priya Pidakala, W/o. Mr. Surender Pidakala, D/o. Yesuratnam Chettubattina, Aged: 29 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o: LIG 745, Bharathinagar Colony, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram, Sangareddy District, Hyderabad – 502 032

2.Mr. Surender Pidakala, S/o: Raj Kumar Pidakala, Aged: 32 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o: 13-26, Srinivas Nagar Colony, Ramachandrapuram, Sangareddy District, Hyderabad – 502 032 … Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2

This O.P came up before me for final hearing on 16.04.2024 in the presence of Sri Shahnaaz Khan, Counsel for Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, having perused the material on record, having heard the learned Counsel for Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is an application under Section 10-A of the Divorce

Act, 1869.

2.The petitioners are wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on 08.12.2021 at Sria Banquet Hall above 2 of 4 D.O.P. No. 6 of 2024

G. Pulla Reddy Sweets, near Allwyn X Road, as per Christian rites and customs. After the marriage, petitioner No. 1 joined the company of petitioner No. 2 at his residence at 13-26, Srinivas

Nagar Colony, Ramachandrapuram, Sangareddy District, but due to differences arose between the petitioners from day one of the marriage the marriage was not consummated. Petitioner No. 1 was residing with her parents and the efforts made by the elders and well-wishers of both the petitioners to reconcile them went in vain. As such both the petitioners have decided that their marriage shall be dissolved. Under the above circumstances the petitioners have entered into Memorandum of Understanding

dated 08.04.2023 to take divorce by mutual consent by filing a

petition before this court.

3.In terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 08.04.2023, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 agreed and returned their gifts and gold items along with clothing and belongings as full and final settlement as no due from either of the petitioners.

4.The petitioners have amicably settled the financial transactions between them and they have no claims against each other. Hence the petition.

3 of 4 D.O.P. No. 6 of 2024

5.The petitioners examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P6 in support of their case.

6.A perusal of the pleadings and the evidence filed by the petitioners shows that the petitioners had been married on 08.12.2021 and Marriage Certificate was issued in Ex.P3 by

Bethel Church (The Evangelical Church of Hyderabad), 1-119/1

Chandanagar, Hyderabad.

7.The petitioners have stated that since day one of the marriage differences arose between them and they have been living apart since, 2021. That there is no scope for reconciliation between them and they wish to obtain divorce by mutual consent in terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 08.04.2023. Both the parties agreed that they shall have no claims against each other in future in any way. The same is also expressed before this court in the form of affidavits and their evidence as P.Ws.1 and 2 on 16.04.2024 as the statutory period of six months has been waved off since the date of filing this petition vide order in I.A. No. 925 of 2024 dated 04.04.2024.

Therefore, the petitioners agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. In view of the above, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have complied with all the requirements of Section 10-A of the 4 of 4 D.O.P. No. 6 of 2024

Divorce Act, 1869 and there is no possibility of effecting any reconciliation between them.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed directing that the marriage between petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 dated 08.12.2021 be dissolved with effect from the date of decree. No order as to costs.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18 st day of April,

2024.

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No.of witnesses examined on behalf of

Petitioners For Respondent

P.W.1: Mrs. Rathna Priya Pidakala-None- P.W.2: Mr. Surender Pidakala

Documents marked on behalf of the Petitioners

Ex.P1: Wedding Invitation Card dated 08.12.2021 Ex.P2: Wedding photos (4 Nos.) Ex.P3: Marriage Certificate dated 08.12.2021 Ex.P4: Mutual Divorce MOU dated 08.04.2023 Ex.P5: Compared copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner No. 1 Ex.P6: Compared copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner No. 2

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

1 of 3

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGES COURT, SANGAREDDY

Present: SRI K.PRABHAKARA RAO,

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy.

FRIDAY, THE 17th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

AS.No. 15 OF 2023

Between:-

Smt. Sagam Siva Sagara Kumari, W/o. Jagan Mohan Reddy aged about 56 years, Occ:Household, R/o. H.No.4-24/A, Block-A, Citizen Colony, Indresham Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District, T.S.

...Appellant

AND

Sagam Gireesh Reddy, S/o. Jagan Mohan Reddy, aged about 31 years, Occ:Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No.5-13H4, Narendra Nagar Colony, Ameenpur Village, Sangareddy District, Telangana State – 502 032.

...Respondent

The appellant preferred the Appeal Suit aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 21.03.2023 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy in:-

O.S. No. 1550 of 2022

Between: Smt. Sagam Siva Sagara Kumari, W/o. Jagan Mohan Reddy aged about 56 years, Occ:Household, R/o. H.No.4-24/A, Block-A, Citizen Colony, Indresham Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District, T.S. …Plaintiff A N D Sagam Gireesh Reddy, S/o. Jagan Mohan Reddy, aged about 31 years, Occ:Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No.5-13H4, Narendra Nagar Colony, Ameenpur Village, Sangareddy District, Telangana State – 502 032.

...Defendant

2 of 3

This Appeal suit came up before me for hearing on 17.11.2023 in the presence of Sri B. Sudhakar, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri. K.Panduranga Rao, Advocate for Respondent, having perused the material on record, upon receiving mediator’s report and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The above appeal suit is preferred aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 21.03.2023 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy in OS.No.1550/2022.

2.The appellant filed a memo to refer the appeal to the Mediation Center, DLSA, Sangareddy for settlement and to record the compromise terms, accordingly the appeal was referred to Mediation Center, DLSA, Sangareddy.

3.Mediator’s report received. Parties reached agreement before the mediator. The appellant and respondent appeared before this court today along with their respective counsels. The terms of the agreement arrived

before the Learned Mediator are readover and explained to them in Telugu

language, thereafter they have agreed and accepted the said terms and finally requested to dispose off the present appeal in terms of compromise agreement recorded by the Learned Mediator. Accordingly this appeal is disposed off with the following terms:

i. The above case has been amicably settled between the parties at the instance of the well wishers of the parties, therefore the Respondent has executed Registered Gift Deed vide document No.21442/2023, dt.30.10.2023.

3 of 3 ii.The appellant has received the original Gift Deed and also agreed to withdraw the Appeal Suit No.15 of 2023 against the Respondent.

iii. Hence the both parties are agreed to close the Appeal Suit No.15 of 2023 to avoid the future litigation and there is no need to proceed with the case.

iv. Parties to bear their own costs.

v. Attached the Memorandum of compromise agreement, dated 9.11.2023 signed by the parties and recorded by the mediator to this judgment.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist and pronounced in the open Court on this the 17th day of November, 2023.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

SANGAREDDY

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

SANGAREDDY

Present:SRI K.PRABHAKARA RAO

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

Friday this the 19th day of April, 2024

EP.No. 366 OF 2022

IN

Arb.Case No.160/2012

BETWEEN:

Manapuram Finance Ltd., Earlier it known as Manappuram General Finance & Leasing Ltd., Manapuram House, Valappad (PO), Thrissur, Represented by its Dy.Manager & Authorized agent P.Purnachadram ...Decree Holder A N D

1. Parakala Ram Reddy, S/o. Sankar Reddy, R/o.H.No.2-81/1, Chowtkur Pulkal Mandal, Medak District – 502 273.

2. P.Sankar Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, R/o. H.No.2-81/1, Chowtkur, Pulkal Mandal, Medak District – 502 273. ...Judgment Debtors

CLAIM:- Petition filed Under Order 21 Rule 37 of CPC for realization of E.P amount.

This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri. SK.Ahmed Shareef, Counsel for Decree Holder and as there was no representation on behalf of Decree Holder, and upon perusing the record, this court delivered the following order as follows:

:: O R D E R ::

DHR called absent. As subsistence allowance not paid. EP is dismissed for default.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

SANGAREDDY.

//TRUE COPY//

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

SANGAREDDY.