Sri K. Raveendra Singh

Prl. District and Sessions Judge

Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex · Nizamabad · Telangana

Sri K. Raveendra Singh, Prl. District and Sessions Judge, is posted at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex, Nizamabad, Telangana, India. 526 court orders on record since 2013. 25 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles MVOP, CRL, CRLMP cases.

526

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

EP/1100003/2015

Manja Athmaram vs Brij Mohan

02 Sep 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING

CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM- IX ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO. 3 of 2015

PRESENT: Sri K. Raveendra Singh I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Special Sessions Judge for Fast Track Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum- XI Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Between: Manja Athmaram, R/o Chadmal Thanda, ..Decree Holder.

And

1. Brij Mohan, R/o Anoj Mondi Ballavgarh Faridhabad Dist. Haryana State.

2. Oriental Insurance comp.ltd rep by Br.Manager Hero Honda Show Room Hyd road. Vinayaknagar Nizamabad.

…Judgment Debtors

DOCKET ORDER Dated.06.07.2015

The decree holder having obtained a decree of compensation amount in this Tribunal on 26-6-20104. The EP is filed for realization of the EP amount by attaching the movable properties of the insurance company or respondent No.2. In the meantime is appears that the amount was deposited. The learned advocate for the petitioner argued that the decree holder is entitled for some more amount and the same was opposed by the learned advocate for respondent or judgment debtor No.2 Heard the learned advocate for decree holder and learned advocate for judgment debtor. Though the respondent No.2 deposited the amount in terms of the award still the advocate for the decree holder represented that the decree holder is entitled to some more amount. The contention of the learned advocate for the decree holder is vague and it cannot be entertained. In view of the deposit of the amount by the judgment debtor No.2, this EP is liable to be terminated as there are no merits. In the result, the EP is terminated.

FAC: Special Sessions Judge for Fast Track Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum- XI Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING

CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM- IX ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO. 8 of 2015

Between: Bal Lingam, R/o H.No. 1-28, Somarpet village, Yellareddy.

..Decree Holder.

And

1. P. Ravinder, R/o Ayyappa Kirana Merchant, Yellareddy.

2. National Insurance Com. Ltd., rep. by. Br. Manager. B. Laxmiraj Complex Jawahar Road, Nizamabad.

…Judgment Debtors

DOCKET ORDER Dated.28.07.2015

The decree holder who obtained decree for grant of compensation for the injuries sustained by him in motor accident filed this EP for recovery of the amount by attaching and sale of immovable properties. The description of which are furnished in the EP schedule. Though the notice was issued to the respondents, now the respondent/insurance company did not appear. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. Perusal of the certified copy of decree shows that on 28-6-2011, this Court granted compensation of Rs.77,280 together with the other benefits such as interest, costs etc. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the JDR has deposited Rs.1,24,860 on 1-7-2015 which is lying to the credit of the present OP on hand. In view of the deposit of the amount, the EP is closed. for the present.

FAC: Special Sessions Judge for Fast Track Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum- XI Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING

CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM- IX ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO. 7 of 2015

Between: Bachu Yashwant R/o H.No.3-14-27 Kotagalli Nizamabad. ..Decree Holder.

And

The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Nizamabad.

…Judgment Debtor

DOCKET ORDER Dated.03.09.2015

The decree holder having obtained a decree of compensation amount in this Tribunal on 29-11-2004 and which was carried to the High Court wherein the High Court has enhanced the comensation amount as per its judgment

dated 24-1-2013 in CMA No.868 of 2005. The EP is filed for realization of the EP

amount by attaching the movable properties of the insurance company or respondent No.2. When the notice was served on the judgment debtor No.2, the learned advocate for respondent No.2 filed a memo for continuation of the appearance. In the meantime it appears that the amount was deposited. The learned advocate for the petitioner argued that the decree holder is entitled for some more amount and the same was opposed by the learned advocate for respondent or judgment debtor No.2. Heard the learned advocate for decree holder and learned advocate for judgment debtor. Though the respondent No.2 deposited the amount in terms of the award still the advocate for the decree holder represented that the decree holder is entitled to some more amount. The contention of the learned advocate for the decree holder is vague and it cannot be entertained. IN view of the deposit of the amount by the judgment debtor No.2 this EP is liable to be terminated as there are no merits. IN the result, The EP is terminated.

FAC: Special Sessions Judge for Fast Track Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum- XI Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING CASES

RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO. 77 of 2021

PRESENT :Sri. T. Srinivas,

Special Judge for trial of Cases under

SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking Cases relating to Atrocities against Women- cum-IV Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Now Represented by its Authorized Signatory Mr. A. Mallikharjun, S/o Srinivas, Aged: 36 years, Working as Senior Divisional Manager, Nizamabad. ..Decree Holder.

And

1.Mohammed Moinuddin, S/o M.A. Azamoddin, H.No. 920-198, Dairy Form X Road, Auto Nagar, Nizamabad.

2.Muntaz Ali, S/o Shaik Mohammed, H.No. 9-13-214, Azam Colony, Nizamabad.

…Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.05.06.2023

The learned counsel for the decree holder filed the full satisfaction memo.

Recording the same, this E.P. is terminated.

FAC: Spl.Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the relating to Atrocities against-Women-cum- IV-Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

IV-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO.90 of 2018

In ARBITRATION CASE NO.1169 OF 2014

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-IV Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad. Between: M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Now Represented by its Authorized Signatory Sri G.Laxmi Narayana S/o Bhoomaiah, aged: 37 years, with its branch office situated at Nizamabad. Now present Rep by Mr. A.Mallikharjun S/o Srinivas, aged: 36 years, Occ: Sr. Divisional Manager, R/o. Nizamabad. ..Decree Holder.

And

1. Vusike Satya Srinivas S/o Narayana, H.No.6-23-371, Goutham Nagar, Nizamabad.

2. Mailaram Balaram S/o Mailaram Rama Swamy, H.No.10-3-226, Shivaji Nagar, Nizamabad. Designation Asst. Telecom. Technician, O/o BSNL, Telecom Office, Bodhan, Nizamabads.

…Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.03.02.2023

The learned counsel for the D.Hr filed memo not pressing the E.P. In view of filing of memo, recording the memo, this EP is dismissed as not pressed.

//Sd// FAC: Spl.Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the relating to Atrocities against-Women-cum- IV-Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

/ / TRUE EXTRACT / /

Judge, Family Court-cum-

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Spl.Sessions Judge-cum IV-Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

IV-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO.139 of 2021

In ARBITRATION CASE NO.1181 OF 2014

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-IV Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad. Between: M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Now Represented by its Authorized Signatory Sri A. Mallikharjun, S/o Srinivas, aged: 36 years, Occ: Sr. Divisional Manager, R/o. Nizamabad. ..Decree Holder.

And

1. Bathula Guru Swamy S/o Venkatesham, H.No.8-151/48, Ramnagar, Yedpally, Dist.Nizamabad

2. P.Babu Khan S/o Saheb Khan, H.No.9-55/17, Nehru Nagar, Mandal: Yedpally, Dist. Nizamabad.

…Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.02.02.2023

The movable property is situated within the limits of Bodhan court. Hence, this Court cannot attach the movable property as it is situated out side the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, this E.P. is dismissed as not maintainable.

//Sd// FAC: Spl.Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the relating to Atrocities against-Women-cum- IV-Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

/ / TRUE EXTRACT / /

Judge, Family Court-cum-

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Spl.Sessions Judge-cum IV-Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

IV- ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

NIZAMABAD.

M.V.P.O NO.129 OF 2021

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- IV-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. Between: Peddolla Bhoomesh alies Peddolla Bhuma Goud S/o Peddolla Raja Goud, aged: 34 years, Occ: Toddy Tapper and toddy business, R/o H.No. 3-10-447, Vivekananda Nagar colony, Near Radio Station, Nizamabad

...Petitioner

And

1. Smt. Bonthala Sravanthi W/o Bonthala Ratnakar Rao, aged: major, Owner of Scooty bearing No. TS-16-ES-1588, R/o H.No. 1-1-136, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad.

2. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch, Manager, Branch H.No. 5-6-430, Above Bank of Baroda, 1st Floor, Besdie HDFC Bank, Hyderabad road, Nizamabad – 506 003. (Certificate No.3190741113/000000, Vide from 07.10.2019 to 06.10.2024) … Respondents.

DOCKET ORDER Dated. 09.01.2023

The learned counsel for the petitioner filed memo not pressing this case. vide CFR No. 864/2022, dated. 16.11.2022. Recording the same, this case is dismissed as not pressed.

FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- IV- Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO.54 of 2022

In ARBITRATION CASE NO.2287 OF 2016

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-IV Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad. Between: M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Now Represented by its Authorized Signatory Sri A. Mallikharjun, S/o Srinivas, aged: 36 years, Occ: Sr. Divisional Manager, R/o. Nizamabad. ..Decree Holder.

And

1. Suresh Soma S/o Rajeshwar. H.No.1-12/1, Village Nallur, Mandal Balkonda, Dist. Nizamabad.

2. G. Sai Krishna, S/o Kistaiah, Disg: Conductor GR-2 O/o TSRTC, Rani Gunj-II Hyderabad …Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.10.01.2023

Salary attachment warrant was served on the D.D.O of JDR No.2 on 06.01.2023. Recording the same, this EP is closed.

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-IV- Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

AS.NO.04 of 2021

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-IV Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad. Between: Smt. Sudham Laxmibhai @ Govind Laxmibhai W/o Late Gangaram, aged about (73) years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.3-8-116, Ashok Veedi, Kotagally, Nizamabad.

..Appellant/Plaintiff

And

Smt. Gangamani W/o Late. Jiya Sailoo, aged about 43 years,. Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.3-10-425, backside of house of Gouraram Sailoo, Opp: Radio Station, Nyalkal Road, Nizamabad.

..Respondent/Defendant No.2

DOCKET ORDER Dated.04.01.2023

In view of the orders in IA No. 05 of 2023 dt.04.01.2023 this case is advanced to today. The learned counsel for appellant filed a memo not pressing the appeal. Notice is also given to other side. Recording the memo, this case is dismissed as not pressed.

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-IV- Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO.114 of 2018

In ARBITRATION CASE NO.1373 OF 2016

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-IV Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad. Between: M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Now Represented by its Authorized Signatory Sri G Laxmi Narayana S/o Bhoomaiah, aged: 37 years, with its branch office situated at Nizamabad. Now present Rep by Mr. Mallikharjun S/o Srinivas, aged: 36 years, Sr. Divisional Manager, R/o Nizamabad. ..Decree Holder.

And

1. Prathap Singh Jaripala S/o Devi Singh. H.No.1-91/1, Pandimadugu. Sirikonda, Dist. Nizamabad.

2. Niradi Ramesh S/o Sangaiah. H.No. 1-52, Jaldipally village, Limgapet, Dist. Nizamabad.

3. Badavath Ramulu S/o Bojya, H.No. 1-68, Pakala, Thumpalle, Dist. Nizamabad, Designation Line Men, O/o NPDCL (M), Thumpally Sirikonda, Dist. Nizamabad.

…Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.22.12.2022

Warrant under Order 21 Rule 48 of CPC is served on the D.D.O of JDR NO.3 on 24.11.2022 considering the same, this EP is closed tentatvely.

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-IV- Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

II- ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

M.V.P.O NO.511 OF 2017

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Between: Konda Taruni D/o. Late Konda Srinivas, Aged: 2 years, Occ: Nil., Minor under the guardianship of her maternal grand father Sri M. Jarnappa S/o Rajappa, aged: 62 years, Occ: Retired Govt. Employee, R/o H.No.3-5-569/7, Akula papaiah colony, Gayathrinagar, Nizamabad.

...Petitioners

And

1. Ganraj Carries, represented by its Proprietor, Balaji Complex, Room No.C- 502, Plot No.12/13 Sec 8E, Kalabmboli, Panvel Raigad, Maharastra State (owner of the container Lorry No. MH-46-AF-9583) & (3) Others.

… Respondents.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.27.03.2018

Notices to R2 and R4 served, Notice of R1, R3, R4 awaited. Sri N. Sadanand Goud, Advocate filed Vakalath for R2. Sri B.Sur Reddy advocate filed vakalath for R3 and R4. R1 called absent. P.O post kept vacant. Callon. 27.04.2018

DOCKET ORDER Dated.05.09.2018

Counter for R3 and R4 filed. R1 notices awaited. Call on. 22.10.2018.

Sd/-

Chief Administrative Officer II- Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

//TRUE EXTRACT//

II- Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO.41 of 2021

In ARBITRATION CASE NO.4912 OF 2016

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-IV Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad. Between: M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, D. no. 1-13-405/C, Block No. 203, Rukmini Chambers, Vinayak Nagar, Nizamabad Branch represented by its Power of Attorney holder and authorized signatory Sri Y. Ramakrishnudu S/o Y.Narayana, Aged. 38 years, Occ: Divisional Manager R/o Nizamabad. ..Decree Holder.

And

1. Shaik Muqthar R/o H.No.8-14-15/1, Renjal village and Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

2. Md. Sajid R/o H.No.6-20-45/1, Dubba, Nizamabad.

…Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.25.11.2022

DHR is called absent. No representation for the DHR. Inspite of granting several adjournment, no process is deposited by the DHR. This petition has been coming for deposit of process since 09.11.2022 since then the DHR has not deposited the process for taking of this matter. Hence, this court see no ground to adjourn the matter in the routine manner without there being any progress. Considering the docket of the petition, this EP is dismissed for default.

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-IV- Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO.139 of 2021

IV- ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

NIZAMABAD.

M.V.P.O NO. 228 OF 2017

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- IV-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. Between: 1-Hazari Ravindher S/o Hazari Vittobam, aged:55 years, Occ: Kirana Business, 2-Rama Krishna Hazari S/o Ravinder Hazari, Aged 32 years, Occu: Pvt Employee 3-G.Harika W/o G.Laxmi Kanth (D/o Hazari Ravindher), Aged 30 years, Occu: House- hold All are R/o H.No.1-6-54/1/1, Ramnagar, Armoor (V) and Mdl, Dist. Nizamabad.

...Petitioners

And

1.Telangana State Road Transport Corporation rep. its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2.Telangana State Road Transport Corporation rep. its Depot Manager, Nizamabad Depot No.1 (Bus bearing No.AP-25-Z-0032) … Respondents.

DOCKET ORDER Dated. 15 .09.2022

Petitioner is called. Absent. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner paid costs to DLSA Nizamabad, failed to adduce the evidence of the petitioner inspite of granting conditional order. This is a case pertains to the year, 2017. Hence this court see no ground to adjourn the case. Considering the docket of the case, the petition is dismissed for default.

FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- IV- Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO.81 of 2017

ARBITRATION CASE NO.949 OF 2015

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-IV Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad. Between: M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, D. no. 1-13-405/C, Block No. 203, Rukmini Chambers, Vinayak Nagar, Nizamabad Branch represented by its Power of Attorney holder and authorized signatory Sri Y. Ramakrishnudu S/o Y.Narayana, Aged. 38 years, Occ: Divisional Manager R/o Nizamabad. ..Decree Holder.

And

1. Akther Ahmed S/o Mazar Khan, H.No.10-22/1, Neela village of Renjal mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

2. Saluddin, H.No.5-63, Kandakurthi village of Renjal mandal. Dist. Nizamabad.

…Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.20.09.2022

The decree holder is called absent. No representation for decree holder. This EP has been coming up for depositing of process fee3 since 06.11.2019. Inspite of granting several adjournment, the decree holder failed to deposit process fees as directed, for issuance of notice to the Judgment debtors under order 21 Rule 37 of CPC. Since the Court has given sufficient time to deposit the process. Having considering the case docket this court is of the view that the decree holder has lost interest in prosecuting this case. Hence, EP is dismiss for default.

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-IV- Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

…Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated. 24.03.2022

The learned counsel for the decree holder filed full satisfaction memo praying the court to dismiss the EP. Recording the full satisfaction memo, the E.P. is terminated.

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-XI Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO. 56 of 2017

ARBITRATION CASE NO.126 OF 2015

1.M/s Edusmart Services Pvt Ltd. & Having its registered office at L -74, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi – 110037.

2.M/s Educomp Solutions Ltd, Having its office at 1211, Padma Tower-1,5 Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008 ..Decree Holder.

And

VIGNAN HIGH SCHOOL,

NGO’s COLONY, SUBHASH NAGAR, NIZAMABAD. Represented by its authorized Principal/ Correspondent. …Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.01.04.2022

The decree holder is called. Absent. No representation for the decree holder. Process fee is not deposited for issuance of attachment of movable property. Since this is EP pertains for the year 2017, as no process fee is deposited, this EP is dismissed for default.

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-XI Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO. 88 of 2017

ARBITRATION CASE NO. 815 OF 2015

E.P.NO. 199 of 2021

ARBITRATION CASE NO. 114 OF 2020

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-VIII Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad. Between: M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., D.No.1-13-405/C, 2nd floor, block No. 203, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad represented by its GPA, holder, Y.Ramakrishnudu S/o Narayana, R/o. Nizamabad.

...Decree Holder.

And

1. Shankary Vidyalayam, rep by Santhosh Kumar Gangi, H.No.2-2-258/AS/5, Sri Laxmi Vinayaka Colony, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad.

2.Damodar Mamidipally S/o Sheshagiri Mamipally, Shankar Ghavan School, ZPHS Beside, Usha Prasad Multiplex, Peddabazar Road, Nizamabad.

…Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.21.03.2022

The learned counsel for the Petitioner/decree holder filed full satisfaction memo. Recording the same, this E.P. terminated.

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-VIII Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

M.V.P.O NO.549 OF 2018

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- XI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. Between:

1. Jampani Singaiah S/o Jampani Veeraiah, aged: 50 years, Occ: NIL

2. Jampani Srinivas Rao S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 26 years, Occ: NIL

3. Jampani Subba Rao, S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged:24 years, Occ: NIL

4. Jampani Suresh S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 22 years, Occ: NIL

5. Jampani Naresh S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 20 years, Occ: NIL All R/o H.No. 5-85, Dharmaram (B) village, Dichpally (M) Dist. Nizamabad

...Petitioners.

And

1. Badavath Chaangu W/o Badavath Bheema, aged: 40 years, Occ: Business- Cum-Owner of Hired with TSRTC Bus bearing No. TS-16-UA-2889, R/o H.No.4-81, Keshpally (V) Jakranpally Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.10.03.2022

I.A. No.40/2021, dt. 10.03.2022 is allowed. Issue summons to Petitioners to produce the Original Aadhar card of deceased and petitioners on payment of process. Call on 06.04.2022

FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- XI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

I.A.NO.40 OF 2021

M.V.P.O NO.549 OF 2018

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- XI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. Between:

1. Jampani Singaiah S/o Jampani Veeraiah, aged: 50 years, Occ: NIL

2. Jampani Srinivas Rao S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 26 years, Occ: NIL

3. Jampani Subba Rao, S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged:24 years, Occ: NIL

4. Jampani Suresh S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 22 years, Occ: NIL

5. Jampani Naresh S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 20 years, Occ: NIL All R/o H.No. 5-85, Dharmaram (B) village, Dichpally (M) Dist. Nizamabad

...Petitioners.

And

1. Badavath Chaangu W/o Badavath Bheema, aged: 40 years, Occ: Business- Cum-Owner of Hired with TSRTC Bus bearing No. TS-16-UA-2889, R/o H.No.4-81, Keshpally (V) Jakranpally Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are called. Absent. This petition is filed under Order 16 Rule 6 r/w 151 of C.P.C., praying the court to summon the original Aadhar Cards of the deceased Jammpani Pichamma and all the original Aadhar cards of the petitioners to decide the actual age of the petitioner and the deceased as the respondents/petitioners have shown their ages by suppressing the original ages in order to claim more compensation than actually entitled in the interest of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent filed counter opposing the petition. In the counter it is contended that the petitioner/respondent no.2 is not entitled to seek such relief and have no right to file this petition at the time of evidence of the petitioners. Hence prayed the court to dismiss the petition. Perused the record. Treated Heard for the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.

2 Point for determination: Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief as prayed for ? Point: This petitioner is the respondent no.2 in the main OP filed for claiming compensation by the respondents against this petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents herein who are the petitioners in the main OP have shown their ages by suppressing the original age to claim more compensation. Further they have shown the age of the deceased also very less to claim compensation, hence it is just and necessary to summon the original Aadhar cards of the deceased and the respondents for just decision of the main OP. In the counter the respondent/petitioners claimed that the petitioner has no right to file this petition. With that prayed the court to dismiss the petition. In a case of awarding compensation the Tribunal has to take into consideration as to the age of the deceased which is relevant. In a motor vehicle accident claim petition, for application of multiplier the age of the deceased is taken into consideration and to decide the compensation. Since the petitioner/respondent no.2 seriously disputing the age of the deceased and the petitioners it would be relevant to call for the original Aadhar card of the deceased and the petitioners as pleaded in the affidavit of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to seek the relief as prayed for.

In the result, the petition is allowed. Issue summons to the petitioners with a direction to produce the original Aadhar card of the Jammpani Pichamma W/o. Jammpani Singaiah and original Aadhar cards of the petitioner on payment of process.

FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- XI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

M.V.P.O NO.549 OF 2018

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- XI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. Between:

1. Jampani Singaiah S/o Jampani Veeraiah, aged: 50 years, Occ: NIL

2. Jampani Srinivas Rao S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 26 years, Occ: NIL

3. Jampani Subba Rao, S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged:24 years, Occ: NIL

4. Jampani Suresh S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 22 years, Occ: NIL

5. Jampani Naresh S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 20 years, Occ: NIL All R/o H.No. 5-85, Dharmaram (B) village, Dichpally (M) Dist. Nizamabad

...Petitioners.

And

1. Badavath Chaangu W/o Badavath Bheema, aged: 40 years, Occ: Business- Cum-Owner of Hired with TSRTC Bus bearing No. TS-16-UA-2889, R/o H.No.4-81, Keshpally (V) Jakranpally Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.10.03.2022

I.A. No.40/2021, dt. 10.03.2022 is allowed. Issue summons to Petitioners to produce the Original Aadhar card of deceased and petitioners on payment of process. Call on 06.04.2022

FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- XI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING

CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

NIZAMABAD.

S.C.No. 20 of 2020

(PRC.No.29/2019 in FIR No.128/2018) (Police Station : Makloor)

PRESENT: Smt. SHOUKATH JAHAN SIDDIQUE, Special Sessions Judge for Fast Track Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum- XI Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Between: The State through P.S. Makloor Complainant.

V/s

Induru Pedda Sailoo Accused.

Offence U/sec. 376 of Indian Penal Code.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.12.01.2021

Police present and filed copy of Death Certificate of sole accused and report of police endorsed by Public Prosecutor and also V.R.O report stating accused died. Verified the documents. Case against accused is abated.

Special Sessions Judge for Fast Track Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum- XI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

EP/1100007/2015

Bachu Yashwant vs The Municipal Commissioner

03 Sep 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING

CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM- IX ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO. 7 of 2015

Between: Bachu Yashwant R/o H.No.3-14-27 Kotagalli Nizamabad. ..Decree Holder.

And

The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Nizamabad.

…Judgment Debtor

DOCKET ORDER Dated.03.09.2015

dated 24-1-2013 in CMA No.868 of 2005. The EP is filed for realization of the EP

FAC: Special Sessions Judge for Fast Track Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum- XI Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING CASES

RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

AS.NO.04 of 2021

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-IV Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad. Between: Smt. Sudham Laxmibhai @ Govind Laxmibhai W/o Late Gangaram, aged about (73) years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.3-8-116, Ashok Veedi, Kotagally, Nizamabad.

..Appellant/Plaintiff

And

Smt. Gangamani W/o Late. Jiya Sailoo, aged about 43 years,. Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.3-10-425, backside of house of Gouraram Sailoo, Opp: Radio Station, Nyalkal Road, Nizamabad.

..Respondent/Defendant No.2

DOCKET ORDER Dated.04.01.2023

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-IV- Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO.114 of 2018

In ARBITRATION CASE NO.1373 OF 2016

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-IV Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad. Between: M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Now Represented by its Authorized Signatory Sri G Laxmi Narayana S/o Bhoomaiah, aged: 37 years, with its branch office situated at Nizamabad. Now present Rep by Mr. Mallikharjun S/o Srinivas, aged: 36 years, Sr. Divisional Manager, R/o Nizamabad. ..Decree Holder.

And

1. Prathap Singh Jaripala S/o Devi Singh. H.No.1-91/1, Pandimadugu. Sirikonda, Dist. Nizamabad.

2. Niradi Ramesh S/o Sangaiah. H.No. 1-52, Jaldipally village, Limgapet, Dist. Nizamabad.

3. Badavath Ramulu S/o Bojya, H.No. 1-68, Pakala, Thumpalle, Dist. Nizamabad, Designation Line Men, O/o NPDCL (M), Thumpally Sirikonda, Dist. Nizamabad.

…Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.22.12.2022

Warrant under Order 21 Rule 48 of CPC is served on the D.D.O of JDR NO.3 on 24.11.2022 considering the same, this EP is closed tentatvely.

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-IV- Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

II- ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

M.V.P.O NO.511 OF 2017

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

...Petitioners

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO.81 of 2017

NIZAMABAD.

M.V.P.O NO.281 OF 2021

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- IV-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. Between: Basva Lavanya D/o Basva Yellaiah, aged: 25 years, Occ: Student, R/o H.No.1-45, Siddapur village, Pitlam Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad, presently residing at H.No. 1- 12,158, Vinayak Nagar, Nizamabad.

...Petitioner.

And

1. Dobhal Madhav Singh S/o Chunnilal, aged: Major, Occ: Owner of Car bearing No. MH-21-AX-436, R/o Rajput Krushi Seva Kendra, Sillod Road, Bhokardan, Jalna, Dist. State Maharastra.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.30.08.2022

The learned counsel for the petitioner filed memo. Recording the same, this petition is dismissed as not pressed.

FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- IV- Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO.134 of 2018

IV- ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

NIZAMABAD.

M.V.P.O NO.362 OF 2018

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- IV-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. Between: Lakkam Vasavi W/o Lakkam Sagar, aged : 28 years, Occ: Asha Worker , R/o.H.No.1-86, Rekulapally village, Mandal Dharpally, Sirikonda, Nizamabad.District.

...Petitioner.

And

1. V. Sammi Reddy S/o Raghava Reddy, aged: major, Occ: Owner of Maruthi Swift Car bearing No. AP-36-AQ-2727 R/o 11-23-1491, L.B.Nagar, Warangal- 506001, Telangana State.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.29.06.2022

The learned counsel for the petitioner filed memo not pressing the OP. Recording the memo, this petition is dismissed as not pressed.

FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- IV- Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

M.V.P.O NO.420 OF 2017

...Petitioner.

And

DOCKET ORDER Dated.26.04.2022

FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- XI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO. 42 of 2021

ARBITRATION CASE NO.889 OF 2017

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-XI Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad. Between: M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, D.No. 1-13-405/C, Block No. 203, Rukmini Chambers, Vinayak Nagar, Nizamabad. Branch represented by its Power of Attorney holder and authorized signatory Sri Y. Rama Krishnudu S/o Y. Narayana, aged: 39 years, Occ: Divisional Manager, R/o Nizamabad.

..Decree Holder.

And

1.V.Mallesh R/ H.No.3-66/1, Oddera Colony, Gundaram, Nizamabad.

2.D. Gangaram S/o Chulukaiah R/o H.No.3-66/7, Gundaram, Nizamabad.

…Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated. 24.03.2022

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-XI Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO. 60 of 2017

ARBITRATION CASE NO.628 OF 2018

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-XI Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad. Between: M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Now Represented by its Authorized Signatory and Power of Attorney holder Mr. A. Mallikharjun S/o Srinivas, aged: 36 years, Occ: Senior Divisional Manager, R/o Nizamabad.

..Decree Holder.

And

1.Palepu Nadpi Gangadhar S/o Gangaram, Occ: Kirana Shop, Bheemgal, R/o H.No.1-65, SC Wada, Bheemgal, Nizamabad.

2.Natta Sujatha W/o Marupaka Rajeshwar, Occ: SGT, O/o Babapoor, Bheemgal Mandal. Dist. Nizamabad.

…Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated. 24.03.2022

The learned counsel for the decree holder filed full satisfaction memo praying the court to dismiss the EP. Recording the full satisfaction memo, the E.P. is terminated.

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-XI Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO. 56 of 2017

ARBITRATION CASE NO.126 OF 2015

1.M/s Edusmart Services Pvt Ltd. & Having its registered office at L -74, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi – 110037.

2.M/s Educomp Solutions Ltd, Having its office at 1211, Padma Tower-1,5 Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008 ..Decree Holder.

And

VIGNAN HIGH SCHOOL,

NGO’s COLONY, SUBHASH NAGAR, NIZAMABAD. Represented by its authorized Principal/ Correspondent. …Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.01.04.2022

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-XI Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO. 88 of 2017

ARBITRATION CASE NO. 815 OF 2015

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-XI-Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad. Between: M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Now Represented by its Authorized Signatory and Power of Attorney holder Mr. M. Ashok Kumar S/o Bhushaiah, Age:41 years, Occ: Divisional Manager of Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Nizamabad.

...Decree Holder.

And

1. Badavath Kishan S/o Ramulu, H.No.4-67, Village: Keshpally, Mandal: Jakranpally, Dist. Nizamabad.

2.Ajmeera Srinivas S/o Sangya, H.No.3-36, Puppalapally, Ganya Thanda, Mandal: Jakaranpally, Dist. Nizamabad.

…Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.11.04.2022

Sufficient process fee is not deposited. The D.Hr is called. Absent. No representation for the D.Hr. Hence, this E.P is dismissed for default for non payment of sufficient process fee.

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-XI Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

E.P.NO. 56 of 2017

ARBITRATION CASE NO.126 OF 2015

1.M/s Edusmart Services Pvt Ltd. & Having its registered office at L -74, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi – 110037.

2.M/s Educomp Solutions Ltd, Having its office at 1211, Padma Tower-1,5 Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008 ..Decree Holder.

And

VIGNAN HIGH SCHOOL,

NGO’s COLONY, SUBHASH NAGAR, NIZAMABAD. Represented by its authorized Principal/ Correspondent. …Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.01.04.2022

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-XI Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

ARBITRATION CASE NO. 114 OF 2020

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-VIII Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad. Between: M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., D.No.1-13-405/C, 2nd floor, block No. 203, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad represented by its GPA, holder, Y.Ramakrishnudu S/o Narayana, R/o. Nizamabad.

...Decree Holder.

And

1. Shankary Vidyalayam, rep by Santhosh Kumar Gangi, H.No.2-2-258/AS/5, Sri Laxmi Vinayaka Colony, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad.

2.Damodar Mamidipally S/o Sheshagiri Mamipally, Shankar Ghavan School, ZPHS Beside, Usha Prasad Multiplex, Peddabazar Road, Nizamabad.

…Judgment Debtors.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.21.03.2022

The learned counsel for the Petitioner/decree holder filed full satisfaction memo. Recording the same, this E.P. terminated.

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-Cum-VIII Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

M.V.P.O NO.549 OF 2018

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- XI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. Between:

1. Jampani Singaiah S/o Jampani Veeraiah, aged: 50 years, Occ: NIL

2. Jampani Srinivas Rao S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 26 years, Occ: NIL

3. Jampani Subba Rao, S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged:24 years, Occ: NIL

4. Jampani Suresh S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 22 years, Occ: NIL

5. Jampani Naresh S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 20 years, Occ: NIL All R/o H.No. 5-85, Dharmaram (B) village, Dichpally (M) Dist. Nizamabad

...Petitioners.

And

1. Badavath Chaangu W/o Badavath Bheema, aged: 40 years, Occ: Business- Cum-Owner of Hired with TSRTC Bus bearing No. TS-16-UA-2889, R/o H.No.4-81, Keshpally (V) Jakranpally Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.10.03.2022

I.A. No.40/2021, dt. 10.03.2022 is allowed. Issue summons to Petitioners to produce the Original Aadhar card of deceased and petitioners on payment of process. Call on 06.04.2022

FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- XI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

I.A.NO.40 OF 2021

M.V.P.O NO.549 OF 2018

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- XI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. Between:

1. Jampani Singaiah S/o Jampani Veeraiah, aged: 50 years, Occ: NIL

2. Jampani Srinivas Rao S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 26 years, Occ: NIL

3. Jampani Subba Rao, S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged:24 years, Occ: NIL

4. Jampani Suresh S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 22 years, Occ: NIL

5. Jampani Naresh S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 20 years, Occ: NIL All R/o H.No. 5-85, Dharmaram (B) village, Dichpally (M) Dist. Nizamabad

...Petitioners.

And

1. Badavath Chaangu W/o Badavath Bheema, aged: 40 years, Occ: Business- Cum-Owner of Hired with TSRTC Bus bearing No. TS-16-UA-2889, R/o H.No.4-81, Keshpally (V) Jakranpally Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- XI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

M.V.P.O NO.549 OF 2018

PRESENT: Sri. CH. PANCHAKSHARI, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- XI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. Between:

1. Jampani Singaiah S/o Jampani Veeraiah, aged: 50 years, Occ: NIL

2. Jampani Srinivas Rao S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 26 years, Occ: NIL

3. Jampani Subba Rao, S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged:24 years, Occ: NIL

4. Jampani Suresh S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 22 years, Occ: NIL

5. Jampani Naresh S/o Jampani Singaiah, aged: 20 years, Occ: NIL All R/o H.No. 5-85, Dharmaram (B) village, Dichpally (M) Dist. Nizamabad

...Petitioners.

And

1. Badavath Chaangu W/o Badavath Bheema, aged: 40 years, Occ: Business- Cum-Owner of Hired with TSRTC Bus bearing No. TS-16-UA-2889, R/o H.No.4-81, Keshpally (V) Jakranpally Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.10.03.2022

I.A. No.40/2021, dt. 10.03.2022 is allowed. Issue summons to Petitioners to produce the Original Aadhar card of deceased and petitioners on payment of process. Call on 06.04.2022

FAC: Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- XI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING

CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-

XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

NIZAMABAD.

S.C.No. 20 of 2020

(PRC.No.29/2019 in FIR No.128/2018) (Police Station : Makloor)

PRESENT: Smt. SHOUKATH JAHAN SIDDIQUE, Special Sessions Judge for Fast Track Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum- XI Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Between: The State through P.S. Makloor Complainant.

V/s

Induru Pedda Sailoo Accused.

Offence U/sec. 376 of Indian Penal Code.

DOCKET ORDER Dated.12.01.2021

Special Sessions Judge for Fast Track Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum- XI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

MVOP/1100237/2008

Kailash Venkatesh vs Gaddam Balaiah

29 Jun 2016

MV OP 237 of 2008 1/13

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

[VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC)] AT NIZAMABAD

PRESENT: SRI K.RAVEENDRA SINGH,

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

FAC: VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

MV OP NO.237 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

1.Kailash Venkatesh S/o Pentaiah, 36 years, Business, R/o 5-3-177, Vidyanagar colony, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District (died) through his LR

2.Smt.Gattu @ Kailash Vijaya Laxmi W/o late Kailash Venkatesh, 43 years, Government Teacher, R/o 5-3-177, Vidyanagar colony, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District [Impleaded as per orders dated 13.5.2015 in IA No.17 of 2015]

...Petitioner/s

AND

1) Gaddam Balaiah @ Balraju S/o Durgaiah, 47 years, Driver of APSRTC, Kamareddy Depot, R/o Navipet, Bhiknoor village and Mandal, Nizamabad District

2) The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bodhan Depot

3) The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, RTC cross roads, Hyderabad … Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner/s : Sri Azar Kishan Rao, Advocate, Nizamabad

Counsel for Respondent : Sri M.S.Srihari Acharya, Nos.2 and 3 Advocate, Nizamabad

Respondent No.1 remained ex parte

This petition coming on 27.6.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of the counsel on record and after hearing the counsel and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Tribunal made the following:

ORDER

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.7 lakh for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. Pending disposal of the petition he died and his wife was impleaded as petitioner No.2. The averments in the petition are as follows:

MV OP 237 of 2008 2/13

2.The petitioner No.1 (hereinafter referred to as other injured or deceased) was aged 36 years with occupation of business with monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. On 1.5.2005 the injured boarded the bus bearing

No.AP11Z5536 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle/bus) at 7.30 pm at Toopran bus station and the bus was coming from Hyderabad and proceeding towards Bodhan and when the bus reached Toopran bus station four passengers got down and near about 10 – 12 passengers boarded the bus. To occupy the seats two of the passengers quarrelled with each other on noticing of which the driver of the bus stopped the bus near Deepak dhaba. The petitioner who boarded the bus at Toopran tried to got inside the crowd but all of sudden respondent No.1 herein threw him out of the bus due to which the petitioner fell down from the bus through the door and sustained injuries. The conductor and driver of the bus went to Toopran police station and reported the matter and the petitioner in turn was shifted to Hyderabad as his condition was critical.

He was admitted at Apollo Hospital in emergency condition and underwent treatment. He has undergone surgeries on 1.5.2005 and 4.5.2005 which costed upto Rs.3,26,000/-. Subsequently he was transferred to Apollo

Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad for further treatment. He was discharged on 13.6.2005 from Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills. The patient was managed surgically. In post operative period his censorial improved. He had subsequent deterioration in the conscious state and the CT scan showed haematoma contusion in the right temporal region with extradural haematoma, right traumatic hemispherical swelling. He assessed 80% disability and totally became dependent on the family members. The respondent No.1 is an employee of APSRTC who was placed under suspension under departmental enquiry. The respondent No.2 is the

Depot Manager. The respondent No.2 after verifying the facts gave

MV OP 237 of 2008 3/13

Rs.60,000/-. The respondent No.2 also paid Rs.60,000/- as temporary relief to the petitioner. On complaint, PS Toopran registered a case under

Section 336 IPC in crime No.82 of 2005 against the driver of the crime vehicle. Hence the petition.

3.As already stated, since the petitioner No.1/injured died pending disposal of the main MVOP, his wife is impleaded and accordingly the amendments are made in the petition and the amended fair copy of the petition are also filed.

4.The respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed common written statement/additional written statement. They denied about the manner of accident. It is further stated there is no negligence on the part of bus driver and it is the petitioner who is responsible for the said incident.

They also denied the age, avocation and monthly income of the petitioner

No.1/injured. The petitioners are put to proof that petitioner No.1 died and that petitioner No.2 is legal representative. There is no cause of action for the petitioner. The compensation claim is excessive. The respondents prayed to dismiss the petition.

5.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

(1)Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death of Kailash Venkatesh S/o Pentaiah due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11Z5536 by its driver?

(2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation? If so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

(3)To what relief?

MV OP 237 of 2008 4/13

6.On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner No.2 was examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A16. The petitioner No.2 also examined one eyewitness to the accident as P.W.2. Though the evidence of the respondents was closed, subsequently the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a petition for reopening of the case and accordingly the said petition was allowed. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 examined the RTC driver of the crime bus in which the incident happened as R.W.1. In his evidence

Ex.B1 a letter written by RTC dated 4.3.2009 was marked subject to objection.

7.Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate

for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

ISSUE NO.1:

8.In the petition by petitioner No.1/injured/deceased stated the manner of accident and petitioner No.2 as P.W.1 stated the very same manner of accident in her chief-examination affidavit. According to the case of petitioners, the petitioner No.1 boarded the RTC bus in Toopran bus station and that while the bus was coming from Hyderabad and going to Bodhan and when it reached Toopran bus station, four passengers got down and 10 – 12 passengers boarded the bus, there was scuffle among the passengers for occupying the seats. It appears that on seeing the scuffle, the driver of the bus stopped the bus in Deepak dhaba. One of the passengers threw the petitioner No.1 out of the bus due to which the petitioner No.1 sustained injury to his head. He was shifted to the hospital and took treatment in various hospitals. P.W.1 got marked certified copy of FIR as Ex.A1 and certified copy of charge-sheet as Ex.A2.

Obviously, P.W.1 is not an eyewitness to the accident. It is suggested to her that since there was scuffle between her husband and the passengers

MV OP 237 of 2008 5/13 (incidentally the said passenger was working as driver in RTC) in which her husband sustained injuries and hence respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not liable to pay compensation. P.W.2 is an eyewitness to the accident. He has also stated the very same manner of accident as stated by the petitioner No.1 in the petition and P.W.1 in her chief-examination affidavit.

In his chief-examination it is elicited that the deceased is not related to him but he has got acquaintance with him. It is also elicited that the accident happened in 2013 and that one of the passengers pushed him as a result he fell down from the bus. The witness volunteered that the said passenger was also RTC driver by profession. He denied suggestion that the driver who was driving the bus at that time was not concerned about such pushing and also injuries sustained by the petitioner No.1. He also stated in the cross-examination that petitioner No.1 sustained injuries on the backside of the neck. He denied suggestion that the deceased sustained injuries due to his negligence and fault and also due to his quarreling nature.

9.On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the driver of the which was involved in the accident was examined as R.W.1. He stated in his chief- examination affidavit that he has been working as driver in RTC corporation and he was doing duty in the bus bearing No.AP11Z5336 (which is involved in the accident) on 1.5.2005 as driver and started bus from Hyderabad to Bodhan more than 50 passengers at 5.30 pm and the bus reached Toopran village by 7.30 pm. At Toopran bus stand some passengers got down and 10 – 12 passengers boarded the bus. He started the bus from bus stand Toopran and in the meanwhile two passengers started quarrelling in the bus and he stopped the bus at dhaba

Toopran and that he came to backside and tried to stop their quarrel and one of them was in drunken condition and he came to know that his name

MV OP 237 of 2008 6/13 is Venkatesh (petitioner No.1 in this case) and another person is Balaiah (against whom police filed charge-sheet). It is also stated that the bus conductor gave complaint to police station Toopran, police registered a case against Balaiah and the said Balaiah happened to be driver of corporation. It is further stated there is no fault on his part for the conductor. The RTC generously paid Rs.60,000/- to the petitioner No.1 for his treatment. The petitioner sustained injuries due to his own fault and as such RTC is not liable to pay compensation. It is further stated the petitioner satisfied with the amount at the time of receiving the same and as such he cannot claim further. It is also further stated after receipt of amount towards full and final settlement, the petitioner cannot claim again.

10.In the cross-examination it is elicited that the conductor of the bus which he was driving lodged a complaint in police station, Balaiah @

Balraju was working as driver in RTC and the police filed charge-sheet against him. It is also elicited he does not know whether Balaiah was suspended. The witness volunteered that he was working in Kamareddy

RTC depot and he was working as driver in Bodhan depot. In the examination by the court it is stated that Balaiah @ Balraju who was travelling in the bus along with his family as general passengers and not while discharging the duties as driver by Balraju. The main contention of the learned advocate for RTC is that the petitioner No.1 fell down from the bus due to scuffle with one of the passengers in the bus. He further argued that incidentally the passenger who pushed the petitioner No.1 from out of the bus happened to be working as driver in the RTC. It is an admitted fact that the police filed charge-sheet against Balraju. After filing of this case and receiving the summons, it appears that the Regional

Manager, Nizamabad addressed a letter to the Depot Manager, APSRTC

MV OP 237 of 2008 7/13

Kamareddy depot for ascertaining about the facts in the assault case in the charge-sheet filed against Balaiah. Thus, according to learned advocate for RTC, it is purely a private affair and hence the RTC cannot be made liable. It is further stated that the person who pushed the petitioner

No.1 from out of the bus is impleaded as respondent No.1 and that only respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay compensation. The learned advocate for the petitioners argued that the incident arose out of use of the motor vehicle and thereby the provisions under Motor Vehicles Act are attracted and that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are liable to pay compensation.

11.It is peculiar to note that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 through

R.W.1 stated in the affidavit of R.W.1 that the petitioner No.1 received the compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards full and final settlement. This fact itself gives clue that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are liable to pay compensation and that they effect compromise outside the court/Tribunal.

The petitioner also did not dispute seriously about receiving of

Rs.60,000/- from RTC. But the question is to be answered is whether the settlement can be made outside Tribunal for lesser amount taking advantage that the petitioner is at receiving end. This Tribunal is of the opinion that irrespective of such settlement outside the Tribunal and also payment of Rs.60,000/- a duty is cast on this Tribunal to decide the quantum of compensation for which the petitioner is entitled for. At best after assessing such quantification of compensation the amount already paid by respondent Nos.2 and 3 can deduct Rs.60,000/- which was already paid by them.

12.So far as the contention of learned advocate for RTC is concerned about the RTC administration is not concerned with the scuffle between

MV OP 237 of 2008 8/13 two passengers, the learned advocate for the petitioner argued that the point to be considered is whether there was use of bus or not to attract the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and also to fix up the liability of respondent Nos.1 and 2. In this connection the learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision reported in Branch Manager National

Insurance Company Limited v Rahmath1. The facts in the reported case are that the driver of the taxi took the taxi from the owner of the taxi and he was plying the taxi. On one day the dead body of the taxi driver was found lying at the outskirts of the village on the barren land, on which the

VAO preferred a complaint and the police registered the case. In the reported case the owner of the taxi and also the insurance company raised the contention that the murder of the taxi driver has nothing to do with the taxi and that neither the insured nor the insurer can be made liable to pay compensation.

13.The Hon'ble Madras High Court has relied upon certain citations in its judgment. The Tribunal is very pertinent to extract following citation in its judgment. In para 12 of the judgment, the High Court referred to thus:

“The true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and/or keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril and, if he does to do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequences of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default, or, perhaps, that the escape was the consequences of vis major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient.”

14.The Hon'ble High Court also further observed in para 19 as follows:

“Like any other common law principle, which is acceptable to our jurisprudence, the rule in Ryland v. Fletcher, 1861 73 AIIER 1, can be followed at least until any other new principles which excels the 1 2012 LawSuit (Madras) 1273.

MV OP 237 of 2008 9/13 former can be evolved, or until the legislation provides differently. Hence we are disposed to adopt the Rule in claims for compensation made in respect of motor accidents.”

15.According to Hon'ble Madras High court negligence is only one of the species of the causes of action for making a claim for compensation in respect of accident arising out of motor vehicles and that they are other premises for such cause action.

16.He also relied upon the decision reported in Oriental Insurance

Company Limited v. Mainaz2. This is a case where some looting was done by the looter in the bus. The claimant resisted the looter as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries and thereafter died. This is a case rendered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, Allahabad High Court also of the view that since the looting was done in the bus the owner of the bus and insurer of the bus are liable to pay compensation. My learned predecessor in this court happened to decide a case, certified copy of which is filed. It is judgment dated 17.1.2014 in OP No.721 of 2008.

Perusal of the entire observations made by the High Court and also my learned predecessor is to the effect that whether there was a use of bus which gives rise for cause of action. In fact as observed by the Gujarath

High Court, the ruling in Ryland v. Fletcher, 1861 73 AIIER 1, that if a person keeps certain property or goods in his land and if such goods happened to pass into the neighbours land, he is liable to pay compensation for the damages caused to the others and also for all the consequences for release of such goods into the land of others. Only two exceptions were recognized in the said ruling. The first exception whether such damage was due to fault of the plaintiff himself and the second exception is an act of God. In the present case on hand even it is not the case of R.W.1 that the petitioner No.1 either himself fell down from the 2 IV (2014) ACC 349 (Allahabad).

MV OP 237 of 2008 10/13 bus or that he was responsible for the scuffle. When the RTC bus is plying and the incident happened in the RTC bus and the cause of action arose because of the use of the bus in the sense that the incident happened in the bus, this Tribunal is of the opinion that respondent Nos.2 and 3 can be made liable to pay compensation. In fact even respondent Nos.2 and 3 paid Rs.60,000/- to the petitioner No.1. Since, incidentally the person who pushed down the petitioner No.1 from out of the bus is working as driver in RTC, not only the criminal case was filed against him but also he was suspended from duties according to the arguments of learned advocate for the petitioner. Thus, this Tribunal is of the opinion that since there is involvement of the bus/use of a motor vehicle the provisions under Motor Vehicles Act definitely attracts. At best respondent Nos.2 and 3 can be directed to pay compensation and thereafter to recover the same from respondent No.1 for whose negligence the incident happened.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner.

ISSUE NO.2 AND 3:

17.The petitioner claimed that the petitioner No.1 in his petition and also petitioner No.2 in chief-examination affidavit claimed that the petitioner No.1 was aged 36 years with occupation business and income of

Rs.10,000/- since he was working in an unorganized sector, the Tribunal cannot expect any documentary proof. The learned advocate for the petitioner tried to project claim as a death claim but the Tribunal is not inclined to accept it. Though the Tribunal accepts that petitioner No.1 sustained injuries, but the petitioners did not lead any evidence to show that as a result of the injuries sustained by the petitioner/injured in the accident. Obviously no PME was done. Though the accident happened in 2005, he died in 2015, that there was a time gap nearly 10 years.

MV OP 237 of 2008 11/13

18.The learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision of

Madras High Court reported in National Insurance Company Limited v.

Anthony (since deceased) and others3. In the reported case also there was considerable gap between the date of accident and date of death.

The High Court observed that production of PME report is not compulsory as cause of death can be inferred from other documents. But in the reported case there was some evidence to show that the death was due to cause of injuries by him. In the present case on hand the petitioners have filed voluminous medical record which is marked as Exs.A3 to A16. He took treatment for considerably long time. But the important link of the death as a result of the injuries sustained by him is not convincing. The petitioner did not examine any doctor under which the petitioner No.1 took medical treatment. The petitioners are at best entitled for the compensation under the head of the expenditure incurred by the petitioners and also towards treatment, towards transport. The petitioner

No.2 cannot claim any compensation under the head of either loss of consortium or under any other heads which can be allowed in a death claim.

19.Perusal of Ex.A6 bunch of hospital bills show that they have incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,18,000/- at first instance. They have also filed certain bills for Rs.25,000/- which were unfortunately not marked. The medical record shows that petitioner No.1 took treatment in several hospitals in Hyderabad, in Nizamabad. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the petitioners, the petitioner should have incurred some expenditure towards special diet/extra nourishment. In the light of the above discussion, the Tribunal is inclined to grant Rs.2,45,000/- towards medical treatment and purchase of medicines. Since, already 3 2015 ACJ 2392.

MV OP 237 of 2008 12/13 petitioner No.1 received Rs.60,000/-, the petitioner is entitled for (Rs.2,45,500-Rs.60,000) Rs.1,85,000/-. The Tribunal is also inclined to grant Rs.50,000/- towards transport charges and also Rs.50,000/- towards special nutritious food. Thus, the petitioner No.2 is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,85,000/-. On deposit of compensation, the petitioner No.2 is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- and balance of

Rs.1,85,000/- is ordered to be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years.

20.Since, the bus which was involved in this accident was owned by respondent Nos.2 and 3, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are liable to pay compensation. Since respondent No.1 pushed down the petitioner No.1 from out of the bus he is also liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, the

Tribunal directs respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay compensation to the petitioner jointly and severally and that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1 by executing the decree passed in this petition. The issues are answered accordingly.

21.IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed as follows:-

a)The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- (rupees two lakh eighty five thousand only) to the petitioner No.2 together with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of this petition till the date of realization;

b)The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month;

c)The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1 by executing the decree passed in this petition;

d)On such deposit, the petitioner No.2 is permitted to withdraw

Rs.1,00,000/- and balance of Rs.1,85,000/- is ordered to be

MV OP 237 of 2008 13/13 kept in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years. The petitioner No.2 is also permitted to withdraw the entire petition costs;

e)The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to deposit the proportionate petition costs to the petitioner and also directed to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to bear their own costs;

f)Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only).

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of June 2016.

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

P.W.1 Smt.Gattu @ Kailash Vijayalaxmi R.W.1 Sri R.Srinivas P.W.2 Sri J.Venkatesham

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1 Copy of FIR Ex.A2 Copy of charge-sheet Ex.A3 Copy of injury certificate Ex.A4 Discharge summaries Ex.A5 Case-sheet of Jeevadan Hospital, Kamareddy Ex.A6 Hospital bills (8) for Rs.2,18,000/- Ex.A7 Hospital admission notes (5 pages) Ex.A8 Investigation charts (4) Ex.A9 Surgical patient records (12 pages) Ex.A10 CT data sheets (2) Ex.A11 Hospital profess sheets (35) Ex.A12 IP records (4) 58 pages Ex.A13 Physiotherapy profess sheets (3) Ex.A14 Case-sheet of Apollo hospital Hyderabad (147 pages) Ex.A15 In house transfer forms of Apollo Hospital Ex.A16 Copy of death certificate

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.B1 Letter by RTC dated 4.3.2009

JUDGE

MVOP/725/2013

Laxmi vs Guglavath Kamala

25 Feb 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL (II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE) FTC AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri K. Raveendra Singh, Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( I Addl.Dist. Judge), Nizamabad. FAC: Prl.Dist.Judge,Nizamabad

Dated this the 25th day of February, 2016

O.P.No. 725 of 2013

Between:

1.Laxmi w/o. Andela Sayareddy, aged 44 years, occu: housewife.

2.Andela Sunil Reddy s/o. Andela Sayareddy, Hindu, age 25 years.

3.Chinnavva w/o. late Andela Sayanna, age 70 years, occu: Nil. (All are r/o. H.No. 3-7-478, Kotagalli, Nizamabad ).

..Petitioners

A n d

1. Guglavath Kamala w/o. Guglavath Lalu, Hindu, aged major, occu: motor cycle bearing No.AP-01-AC-6918, r/o. H.No. 1-184/1, Rayadari village of Mamda mandal, Dist. Adilabad.

2.United India Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, godown road, beside Hotel Mayura, Nizamabad.

..Respondents

This petition coming before me on 9th day of February, 2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Ramesh Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri, G. Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for the respondent No.2, and the respondent No.1 remained absent and set exparte, and having stood over for consideration, this Tribunal makes the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1. This petition is filed by the wife, son and mother of A. Sayareddy against the respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.50,22,000/- ( Rs. fifty lakhs twenty two thousands) on account of death of the deceased A. Sayareddy in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows.

A. Sayareddy ( hereinafter referred to as deceased ) was aged 50 years and he was working as a Govt. teacher under the employment of Andhra Pradesh and his monthly salary was Rs.36,408/-.

2 OP.No.725 of 2013

On 26.12.2012 while the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle, and when he reached near Sirgapur village after crossing the bus stand at 1.30 p.m.

another motor cycle bearing No.AP-01-AC-6918 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle ) driven by its driver with a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner on rear side of the petitioner’s motor cycle, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries. The PS Narsapur registered a case in crime No.107/2012 U/s.304-A IPC against the driver of crime vehicle. The deceased was working as Govt. teacher and also doing agriculture and earning Rs.36.408/- p.m. due to death of deceased the petitioners are put to future monetary loss and also love and affection. The respondent No.1 is insured and respondent No.2 is the insurer, and they are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

3. The respondent No.1 remained absent and he was set exparte.

4. The Respondent No.2 filed the written statement through its standing advocate denying the age, avocation and earnings of the deceased. The quantum of compensation calculated by the petitioners is not correct and false. It also denied that the accident has happened due to negligent act of the driver of crime vehicle, and that he was having valid driving licence. It is further stated that the accident has happened as the deceased himself fell down from the motor cycle, and sustained injuries, and that the police falsely implicated the rider of the crime vehicle at the instance of family members of the deceased to get compensation.

The respondent No.1 was not holding driving licence. The petitioners did not implead the insured and insurer of the motor cycle on which the deceased was riding at the time of accident. The petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It also denied that the respondent No.1 is the insured and that on the date of accident there was coverage of insurance policy for the crime vehicle. It is further stated that even if the vehicle is insured, the liability of respondent No.2 is covered by the provision of MV Act. Respondent No.1 and also the police did not inform 3 OP.No.725 of 2013 the respondent No.2 about the accident. The compensation claimed is excessive and that it is without any basis. The company seeks protection U/s.149(2) of MV

Act. It prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues are framed for consideration.

1.Whether Andela Satareddy died due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle bearing No.AP-01-AC-6918?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation from the respondents as claimed?

3.To what relief?

6. On behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1, who is wife of the deceased was examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked. The petitioners also examined one eye witness to the accident as PW2. The petitioners l summoned the Mandal Education Officer, Mudhole and examined him as PW3, who deposed about the employment of the deceased and also the salary certificate issued by

PW3.

On behalf of the respondent No.2, the Assistant of R-2 company filed his chief examination affidavit and got examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B9.

The respondent No.2 insurance company also summoned the Administrative Officer of RTA office, Adilabad and in his evidence Ex.X1 and X.2 are marked.

The respondent No.2 also filed a petition under Section 170 of M.V. Act and the same was allowed.

7. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned Advocate

for the respondent No.2.

Issue No.1:

8. PW1 re-iterated the manner of accident as stated by her in the petition.

She got marked CC of FIR, inquest report, PME report as Ex.A1 to A3. In the cross examination she denied the suggestion that the accident happened due to own negligence of the deceased. She also denied the suggestion that the crime vehicle is 4 OP.No.725 of 2013 falsely implicated in this case. It is also elicited that she does not know whether the driver of crime vehicle had valid driving licence.

PW2 is an eye witness to the accident and he filed the chief examination affidavit stating that on 26.12.2012 while the deceased was riding the motor cycle and crossed the bus stand of Sirgapoor village and at 12.30 p.m. the crime vehicle driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed dashed on the rear side of the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result of which, the accident has happened. He also deposed about the registration of crime by PS Nasrsapur against the driver of crime vehicle, and also pending of case against the driver of crime vehicle in Addl. JFCM court, Nirmal, and he also stated that he is cited as an eye witness in the charge sheet, and police also examined and recorded his statement, and in his cross examination it is suggested that the deceased is related to him and he stated the said fact in his statement before the police. It is also stated that at the time of accident he was proceeding on another motor cycle behind the motor cycle of the deceased, and he was at a distance of one furlong from the motor cycle of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that the accident has happened due to negligence of the deceased.

RW1 in his chief examination affidavit re-iterated the defences taken by the insurance company in his written statement. The relevant defence for the purpose of this issue is that the rider of the crime vehicle had no driving licence. RW1 got marked the CC of charge sheet and CC of MVI report as Ex.B7 and B8 respectively. In his cross examination a suggestion was put to RW1 that all the documents filed by RW1 are created for avoiding the liability of respondent No.2.

RW2 the Administrative Officer of RTA office, Adilabad was summoned and in his evidence he got marked his authorization letter Ex.C1 to appear in

Tribunal and produce the document and also got marked a document as Ex.X2.

The report submitted by the office of Dy. Transport office, Adilabad stating that on verification of record on computer system, the company found that the driver of 5 OP.No.725 of 2013 crime vehicle was not issued driving licence by the office of Dy. Transport

Commissioner, Adilabad. So far as defence of not having driving licence is concerned, it affects the aspect of fixing of liability. So far as this issue is concerned, it is suffice to hold that the driving the vehicle without driving licence amounts to negligence. Though the respondent No.2 is permitted to avail all the defences available to him U/s.170 of MV Act, the respondent No.2 did not choose to examine any witnesses cited in the charge sheet and that the accident has happened due to negligence of the deceased. Respondent No.1 remained absent.

In the absence of any evidence that the accident has occurred due to own negligence of the deceased, the evidence of PW2 together with the police investigation stands unrebutted and unchallenged.

Accordingly, this tribunal has no hesitation to answer this issue in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents No.1 and 2.

Issue No.2:-

9. The petitioners stated in their petition about theage, avocation and income of the deceased. To substantiate the same the petitioners summoned Mandal

Educational Officer, Mudhole as PW3. He deposed that the deceased A.Sayareddy worked as a teacher at MPTS, Salapur and he was drawing net salary of Rs.36,125/- and that he issued salary certificate which is marked as Ex.A4, and he also referred to service register of the deceased which is marked as Ex.A5 in the evidence of

PW1. He further deposed that if the deceased would have been alive, he would have drawn salary of Rs.45,000/- p.m. on the date of his retirement. In his cross examination he elicited that he was not working as MPTS teacher at Mudhole on the death of deceased. It is also elicited that the deceased would not have got the promotion except the post of Head Master. He also stated that it is true that income tax will be deducted out of the salary. PW3 also stated that he does not know whether the son of deceased was given appointment as a teacher on compassionate ground. It is also elicited that the wife of deceased is getting pension. He denied 6 OP.No.725 of 2013 the suggestion that the deceased was salary of Rs.45,000/- after getting promotion and drawing salary of Rs.36,408/- as on the date of accident/death of the deceased.

The contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that employment was provided to the son of the deceased on compassionate ground, and hence, the compensation is to be reduced. The respondent No.2 did not adduce any positive evidence on that aspect. Even Pw3 pleaded his ignorance about any such employment given to the son of the deceased on compassionate grounds. Even in the cross examination of PW1, it not elicited nor suggested that whether such employment was given to the son. Even in the written statement filed by respondent No.2, there is no mention of giving appointment to the sons of the deceased on compassionate ground. Even otherwise, this Tribunal is of the opinion that providing job to the son of the deceased on compassionate grounds cannot in any way reduce the compensation for which the petitioners are entitled as legal representatives as per the provision of MV Act and as per the decision of Supreme

Court and A.P. High Court.

Similarly, petitioner No.1 being the wife, getting pension also does not affect the quantum of compensation for which the petitioners are entitled for compensation as per the provision of MV Act and as per the decision of Supreme

Court and High Court.

Perusal of Ex.A4 shows that it is a salary certificate issued by Mandal

Educational Officer and it was decided by present Mandal Education Officer. It shows that the deceased was working with the designation of MPPS, Salapur,

Mandal Mudhole since 25.11.1988 and he was drawing salary of Rs.36,408/- and there were deductions of Rs.1810/- and the deceased was getting net salary of

Rs.34,598/-. Since PW3 is Mandal Educational Officer, some weight has to be given to his evidence, and his and his bonafide cannot be doubted as to the fact that the deceased was working as a teacher or drawing of salary by the deceased as per Ex.A4 and the prospects of deceased becoming as head master. Even the 7 OP.No.725 of 2013 petitioners also got marked the service register of the deceased as Ex.A5. Even

PW3 also testified Ex.A5. The net salary of the deceased is taken as Rs.34,000/- as per Ex.A4, the deceased was drawing Rs.36,125/-.

Since the deceased is aged 50 years, the suitable multiplier as per the decision of Supreme Court in Rajsh v/s. Rajbeer Singh, reported in 2013 ACJ, page 1403, 30% i.e. Rs.10,833/- is added towards future prospects of promotion as

Head Master, his contribution to his family would be Rs.46,958/- the tribunal is inclined to deduct 1/3rd of Rs.46,958/-, which comes to Rs.15,652/-, and thus, his net contribution comes to his family comes to Rs.31,306/-. Since it is an undisputed fact that the deceased was aged 50 years, either by way of service register or the police record and also medical record, the suitable multiplier is (13). Thus, the petitioners lost future income of Rs.31,306/- x 12x13= Rs.48,83,000/-. The tribunal is inclined to grant Rs.17,000/- as compensation towards funeral expenses. The tribunal is inclined to grant Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards loss of love and affection and Rs.50,000/- to petitioner towards loss of consortium. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- ( Rs. Fifty lakhs).

On deposit of compensation amount, an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- is apportioned to petitioner No.1 wife, and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is apportioned to petitioner No.2 the major son, and Rs.5,00,000/- is apportioned to petitioner

No.3, mother of the deceased who is aged 70 years.

The petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakhs) and petitioners No.2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw Rs.2,00,000/( Rs. Two lakhs) each, and balance amount of the shares of petitioners No.1 to 3 is ordered to be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.

The main contest of the respondent No.2 is that the driver of crime vehicle was charged U/s.181 of the MV Act and thereby the respondent No.2 cannot be made liable to pay the compensation as respondent No.1 has violated the terms and condition of the policy.

8 OP.No.725 of 2013

As already stated, the Assistant working in the respondent No.2 company filed his chief examination affidavit as RW1, the copy of insurance policy is marked as Ex.B1 in his evidence. It appears that respondent No.2 also issued notice to respondent No.1 and driver of the vehicle, but respondent No.2 did not receive any reply. He got marked the office copy of notice, postal receipt and postal acknowledgment of both the accused and driver as Ex.B2 to B.6. Ex.B7 is the CC of charge sheet, Ex.B8 is the CC of MVI report.

So far as Ex.B7 CC of charge sheet is concerned, it shows that the driver of crime vehicle is charged of the offence U/s.181 of MV Act and perusal of Ex.B1 shows that as on the date of accident, respondent No.1 was insured an respondent

No.2 is the insurer. Perusal of column NO.7, 15, 17 in Ex.B8 CC of MVI report which provides the particulars of driving licence, only the name of driver is noted, and it is further stated that he was without D.L. The respondent No.2 insurance company also addressed a letter to its investigator for obtaining driving licence particulars and also extract of crime vehicle, and the same is marked as Ex.B9.

As already stated, respondent No.2 to substantiate its contention that the driver of crime vehicle has no licence, examined the Administrative Officer who is examined as RW2 deposed that the driver of crime vehicle did not obtain any driving licence from their office to drive the motor cycle and accordingly, the MVI issued Ex.B8 stating that the rider of motor cycle was not having driving licence.

Ex.X1 is the authorization letter and Ex.X2 is the certificate issued from their office. He stated that he only verified the records available in his evidence. It is also elicited that licence can be obtained from any office. He denied the suggestion that the driver of crime vehicle was having valid driving licence, and he is deposing false to help respondent No.2 company.

Since the burden is on respondent No.2 to show that there was no valid driving licence to the driver of crime vehicle, the respondent No.2 filed documentary and oral evidence. But the fact and the evidence of RW1 together 9 OP.No.725 of 2013 with Ex.B1 show that there was effective coverage of insurance policy for the crime vehicle, and thereby, respondent No.2 cannot escape from its liability.

10. In this connection this court relied on the decision reported in Divisional

Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Cuddpah V/s. Acchigari

Prasad 2015(3) ALD 238, in the reported case also the court found that the driver of crime vehicle had no driving licence, but there was coverage of insurance policy for the crime vehicle. In those circumstances, the High Court directed the insurance company to pay the compensation, and thereafter to recover the same from the insured.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, this tribunal is of the opinion that on the basis of above judgment, the insurance company can be directed to pay the compensation at first instance, and thereafter to recover the same from the respondent No.1 the insured.

The judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2013 (ACJ) 1403, Rajesh and others v/s. Rajbeer Singh, the Supreme Court has re-iterated the duty cast on the tribunal to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation. The

Supreme Court relied upon the judgment rendered by it on the previous occasion.

11. Thus, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the contention of learned advocate

for the respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation

cannot be accepted, and on the other hand, as per the decision of A.P. High Court, the respondent No.2 can be made liable to pay the compensation as Ex.B1 was in force as on the date of accident. The respondent No.2 after payment of compensation can proceed against respondent No.1 for recovery of compensation amount from respondent No.1.

12. Accordingly this issue is answered holding that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-, (Rs. Fifty lakhs) and respondent No.2 is directed to pay the compensation amount at first instance, and thereafter to recover the same from respondent No.1 by executing a decree passed in this proceedings.

10 OP.No.725 of 2013

13. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part granting a sum of

Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs) as compensation to the petitioners with costs and with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit, payable by the respondents No.1 and 2.

On deposit of compensation amount, Rs.40,00,000/- is apportioned to the petitioner No.1, and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is apportioned to petitioner No.2 , and Rs.5,00,000/- is apportioned to petitioner No.3.

The petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakhs) out of her share amount, and the petitioners No.2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw

Rs.2,00,000/( Rs. Two lakhs) each out of their share amount, and balance amount of petitioners No.1 to 3 is ordered to be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.

The respondent No.2 is directed to pay the compensation amount at first instance, and thereafter to recover the same from respondent No.1 by executing a decree passed in this proceedings.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2000/-.

Dictated to Grade-I Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 25th day of February, 2016.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, (I Addl.Dist. Judge ), Nizamabad. FAC: Prl.Dist.Judge,Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS

PW1 Laxmi RW1. R. Bhoomaiah PW2 Madhukar Reddy. RW2 D.Venkateshwarlu

PW3 Vishwanath

EXHIBITS MARKED

PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS

Ex.A1 C.C of FIR. Ex.B1 Copy of policy Ex.A2 C.C of inquest report Ex.B2 Office copy of notice.

11 OP.No.725 of 2013

Ex.A3 CC of PME Ex.B3 Postal receipt Ex.A4 Salary certificate Ex.B4 Postal acknowledgment Ex.A5 Service book Ex.B5 Office copy of notice ExA6 Copy of Insurance policy Ex.B6 Postal receipt

Ex.B7 CC of charge sheet. Ex.B8 CC of MVI report Ex.B9 letter dt.3.11.15.

Ex.X1. Authorization letter Ex.X.2. letter issued by RTO,Adilabad.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, (I Addl.Dist. Judge ), Nizamabad. FAC: Prl.Dist.Judge,Nizamabad .

MVOP/696/2014

Jungala Gungu vs Gundla Balaiah

29 Feb 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL (DISTRICT JUDGE) AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri K. Raveendra Singh, Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( I Addl.Dist. Judge), Nizamabad. FAC: Prl.Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 29thday of February, 2016

O.P.No. 696 of 2014

Between:

1.Jungala Gangu W/o. Jungala Gangadhar, aged 55 years, occupation household.

2.Jungala Pavan S/o. Jungala Gangadhar, aged 25 years, occupation Nil. (Both R/o. Padkal village of Jakranpally mandal, Nizamabad District)

..Petitioners

A n d

1.Gundla Balaiah S/o Gangaram, age major, occupation agriculture cum owner of tractor bearing No.AP-25-AD-5339, R/o. H.No.2-87, Manoharabad village, Jakranpally mandal, Nizamabad District.

2.Nomula Raghupathi S/o. Nomula Sayanna, age major, occupation agriculture cum owner of tractor bearing No.AP-25-AD-5339, R/o. Argul village, Jakranpally mandal, Nizamabad Dist.

3.Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Manager, Branch Office at 2nd floor, Balaji Bhavan, H.No. 1-1-329, Beside Kalika Devi Kaman, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad-503001. (Policy No.1807542358000168 valid from 14.4.2014 to 13.4.2015)

..Respondents

This petition coming before me on 25th day of February, 2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Hanmanth Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri, M.V. Narsimha Rao, Advocate for the respondent No.3, and the respondents No.1 and 2 remained absent and set exparte, and having stood over for consideration, this Tribunal makes the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1. This petition is filed by the wife and son of Jungala

Gangadhar against the respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- ( Rs. Twelve lakhs) on account of death of Jungala Gangadhar in a motor vehicle accident.

2 OP.No.696 of 2014

2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows.

Jungala Gangadhar (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was aged 59 years and he is a retired conductor and also attending to agriculture work with monthly income of 20,000/- p.m. On 14.4.2014 while the deceased was driving motor cycle bearing No.AP-25-AF-4171 slowly and cautiously, when reached at Argul village outskirts, Jakranpally mandal one tractor bearing No.AP-25-AD-5339 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed came from opposite direction, on wrong side and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result the tractor ran over J. Gangadhar. Immediately he was shifted to

MJ hospital, Armoor, thereafter he was he was admitted in Oxygen hospital, Alwal, Secunderabad, from there, he was admitted in Osmania

General Hospital, Hyderabad, and while undergoing treatment in the said hospital he died on 21.4.2014. Due to death of the deceased, the petitioners lost future monetary support, love and affection. The respondents No.1 and 2 are the insured, and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the crime vehicle, as such, respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

3. The respondents No.1 and 2 remained exparte.

4. The Respondent No.3 filed the written statement denying the age, avocation and income of the deceased and also entitlement of petitioners to claim the compensation. Respondent No.3 denied that the crime vehicle was in road worthy condition, having valid permit, fitness certificate and that the driver of the crime vehicle was holding effective valid driving licence, and that he was authorized by respondent No.1/respondent No.2 to drive the vehicle. The insured and insurer of the motor cycle are also necessary parties. There was contributory negligence by the rider of the motor cycle. It also denied that 3 OP.No.696 of 2014 the respondent No.2 is the registered owner and that there was effective coverage of insurance policy with respondent No.3. It is further stated that the accident took place on 14.4.2014 at 1800 hours, whereas, the policy was issued for the crime vehicle covering the period from 14.4.2014 at 18.19 hours to mid night of 13.4.2015. Thus, the policy was not in force at the time of alleged accident, as such, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation. The respondents No.1 and 2 and police did not inform respondent No.3 about the accident. The company seeks protection

U/s.147 and 149 of MV Act. The compensation claimed is excessive. It prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues are framed for consideration.

1.Whether the deceased Jungala Gangadhar died in the motor accident with the tractor bearing No. AP 25-AD-5339?

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

3.To what relief?

6. On behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 who is wife of the deceased was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A15.

The petitioners also examined one of the eye witness to the accident as

PW2. The petitioners also examined pw3 to corroborate the evidence of

PW1 on the aspect of age, income of the deceased.

On behalf of the respondent No.3, the Legal Retainer of respondent

No.3 insurance company was examined as RW1, and in his evidence Ex.B1 to B5 are marked. The respondent No.3 summoned and examined Junior

Asst. from the office of Dy. Transport Commissioner and Secretary,

Regional transport authority, Nizamabad and examined him as RW2. In the evidence of RW2, Ex.X1 extract of driving licence was marked.

4 OP.No.696 of 2014

The respondent No.2 also filed a petition under Section 170 of

M.V. Act and the same was allowed.

7. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned

Advocate for the respondent No.3.

8.Issue No.1 : PW1 is notan eye witness to the accident. She got marked CC of FIR, charge sheet, inquest report, PME report as Ex.A1 to A4 respectively. In her cross examination also she re-iterated that she did not witness the accident. She denied the suggestion that there was no negligence on the part of driver of tractor and due to negligent driving of motor cycle by the deceased the accident took place. PW2 is an eye witness to the accident. He filed the chief examination affidavit deposing that on 14.4.2014 the deceased was riding the motor cycle, and when he reached at Argul village outskirts of Jakranpally mandal, the crime vehicle driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which, the accident has happened.

In his cross examination it is elicited that petitioner No.2 lodged a complaint in the police station, and he (Pw.2) did not the complaint in the police station. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not having driving licence. He also denied the suggestion that there was no negligence on the part of driver of tractor, and that due to negligent act of motor cycle by the deceased, the accident has happened. Perusal of Ex.A2 charge sheet shows that PW2 is cited as an eye witness to the accident. Except putting suggestion to PW2, nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence. Perusal of Ex.A1 CC of FIR show that the accident happened on 14.4.2014, and the complaint was lodged on the same day at 8.00 p.m. Thus, there is no delay in lodging the complaint. As already stated, the respondents No.1 and 2 remained absent and exparte. Even though the police registered the crime 5 OP.No.696 of 2014 against the driver of crime vehicle, and in its investigation found that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle by its driver. Thus, in the absence of any evidence on behalf of respondent No.3 on the manner of accident, the evidence of eye witness PW2 stands unchallenged and unrebutted.

9. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents No.1 to 3.

Issue No.2:

10. The Petitioners claim that the deceased retired as bus conductor and he is also attending to agriculture and that he is earning

Rs.20,000/- per month. No material is placed to show that he retired as a bus conductor. The petitioners examined PW3 on this aspect. PW3 deposed that the deceased was aged 59 years and he was a retired bus conductor, and that he was also doing agriculture by raising commercial crops and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioners got marked pattedar passbook to show that the deceased had agriculture land. Ex.A15 shows that Ac.2-25 gts. of land stands in the deceased. Though the petitioners did not file any proof of either raising of crop by filing pahani or any receipt issued by the agriculture market committee to prove the agriculture income. In the absence of such proof, the Tribunal is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5000/-.

As can be seen from Ex.A4 PME report, the age of the deceased was noted as (60) years, as such, the suitable multiplier applicable is (9). Since only two petitioners are depending on the income of the petitioners, the

Tribunal is inclined to deduct Rs.1,666/- towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, thereby, the net contribution to his family is

Rs.5000 - Rs.1,666/- = Rs.3334/- p.m. and thereby the petitioners lost 6 OP.No.696 of 2014 future income of Rs.3,334/- x 12 x9 which comes to Rs.3,60,072/-, which is rounded off to Rs.3,60,000/-.

The Tribunal is inclined to grant Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection, and

Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses.

According to the case of petitioners, the accident happened on 14.4.2014, and while he was undergoing treatment in Oxygen hospital,

Alwal, Hyderabad he died on 21.4.2014. The petitioners filed voluminous medical bills to show about the medical expenditure incurred by him.

On perusal of Ex.A5 shows that he incurred medical expenditure by way of hospital bill of Rs.6460/-. Perusal of Ex.A7 shows the hospital bill issued by MJ Hospital in a sum of Rs.11,110/-. Perusal of Ex.A8 shows that he purchased medicines from various pharmacy for a total amount of

Rs.13,328/-. Perusal of Ex.A9 shows that he incurred medical expenditure of Rs.93,069/-, the bill issued by Oxygen hospital, Hyderabad and other documents such as Ex.A10 prescriptions, Ex.A11 discharge summary,

Ex.A12 X.ray films, Ex.A13 CT scan film also show about the medical treatment given to him for about one week subsequent to accident. Thus, in all he incurred Rs.1,22,867/-, which is rounded off to Rs.1,25,000/-.

Thus the petitioners are entitled for Rs.4,70,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/- towards medical bills. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,95,000/-.

On deposit of compensation, the tribunal apportions Rs.4,00,000/- to petitioner No.1, and Rs.1,95,000/- to petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/-, and petitioner No.2 is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/-, and balance of their respective compensation amount shall be deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.

7 OP.No.696 of 2014

11. The main contest of Respondent No.3 insurance company is two fold. As on the date of accident, to be precise, at the time of accident, there was no effective coverage of insurance policy for the crime vehicle.

It is also the contention of respondent No.2 that the driver of crime vehicle had no valid driving licence, thereby it amounts to violation of condition of policy, and respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation.

To substantiate the same, RW1 and 2 are examined. In cross examination of RW1, he denied the suggestion that the policy was in force as on the date and time of accident, and that the driver of crime vehicle had valid driving licence. It is also elicited that respondent No.3 did not file investigator’s report. It is also elicited that the police has not filed the charge sheet U/s.181 of MV Act.

Rw.2, Junior Assistant in RTA office, Nizamabad deposed that the driver of crime vehicle obtained licence from their office on 12.1.1994 to drive the motor cycle with gear and LMV non transport and it was valid till 11.1.1997, and thereafter the said licence was not renewed. In cross examination he denied the suggestion that Ex.X1 does not pertain to driver of crime vehicle. It is also elicited that he does not know whether police filed the charge sheet against the driver of vehicle only U/s.304-A IPC.

12. Perusal of charge sheet shows that the owner of crime vehicle was shown in the list of witnesses at serial No.6, and the said witness/owner of the vehicle is respondent No.2 in the present case on hand. Perusal of charge sheet further shows that the Investigating Officer verified the vehicle documents driving licence etc. and the accused was not having driving licence and unauthorized attachment with the turmeric polish drum and accordingly he issued vehicle check report dated 26.10.2014 and one Gundla Balaiah/respondent No.1 herein paid the fine 8 OP.No.696 of 2014 amount of Rs.7,990/-. But it is peculiar to note that the accused/driver of crime vehicle was not charge sheeted U/s.181 of MV Act.

13. In the circumstances of this type, the court relies upon the decision of A.P. High Court reported in Divisional Manger, New India

Assurance Company Ltd., Cudapah V/s. Acchigari Prasad, 2015(3) ALD,

238. The High Court also observed in the reported case that though the driver of crime vehicle had no driving licence, since there was effective coverage of insurance policy for the crime vehicle, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation, and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of crime vehicle.

In the present case on hand, so far the fact that the driver had no driving licence, this Tribunal can direct respondent No.3 to pay the compensation at first, and thereafter to recover the same from the respondents No.1 and 2 equally.

It appears that though there was change of vehicle between respondent No.1 and 2, since it does not affect the transfer entry in the office of RTA, the petitioners filed this petition by impleading the respondents No.1 and 2 as insured of the crime vehicle.

14. The next important aspect to be noted in this case is that perusal of Ex.B1 show that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 w.e.f. 18.19 hours on 14.4.2014 and it is valid till mid night of 13-4-2015.

Perusal of Ex.A1 shows that the accident happened on 14.4.2014 at 6 p.m.

(1800 hours). Thus, the time gap between the time of accident and the time of affecting the insurance policy is 0.19 minutes. On the basis of difference of (19) minutes, the learned advocate for respondent No.2 vehemently argued that at the time of accident the crime vehicle was not insured, and thereby respondent No.2 cannot be made liable to pay the compensation.

But this court is not convinced by his argument. Generally, one can expect 9 OP.No.696 of 2014 either payment of insurance premium or effecting the insurance policy or feeding the information in the system. So, actually that the time gap of (19) minutes make such a vast difference. There may some delay in feeding the data in the system, and thereby to affect the insurance policy. Though there may be some difference in minutes either in payment of premium or in affecting the insurance, such time being (19) minutes is negligible. For all practical purposes this Tribunal hold that since the accident happened only (19) minutes prior to affecting the insurance policy, taking into consideration the practicalities the Tribunal holds that not only on the date of accident, but also at the time of accident, there was effective coverage of insurance policy for the crime vehicle.

Accordingly, the point is answered holding that the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and that the respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. On payment of compensation by respondent No.3, respondent No.3 is at liberty to recover the same from respondents No.1 and 2.

15. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part granting a sum of Rs.5,95,000/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety five thousands) as compensation to the petitioners with costs and with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit, payable by the respondents No.1 to 3.

On deposit of compensation amount, Rs.4,00,000/- is apportioned to the petitioner No.1, and an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- is apportions to petitioner No.2.

The petitioners No.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- each out of their share amount, and balance amount of their respective share amount is ordered to be kept in their names in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.

10 OP.No.696 of 2014

The respondent No.3 is directed to pay the compensation amount at first instance, and thereafter to recover the same from respondents No.1 and 2 by executing a decree passed in this proceedings.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2000/-.

Dictated to Grade-I Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of February, 2016.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, (I Addl. Dist. Judge), Nizamabad. FAC: Prl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS

PW1 J.Gangu RW1 M.Madhukar PW2 G. Ashok RW2 P. Raghupathi Rao PW3 V. Bhushan

EXHIBITS MARKED

PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS

Ex.A1 CC of copy of FIR Ex.B1 Copy of Insurance policy Ex.A2 CC of Charge Sheet Ex.B2 Copy of notice. Ex.A3 CC of Inquest Ex.B3 Postal receipt. Ex.A4 CC of PME report Ex.B4 Returned Postal cover. Ex.A5 Hospital bills Ex.B5 Acknowledgement card. Ex.A6 Prescription of Oxygen hospital. Ex.A7 Prescription of Osmania Ex.X1 Extract of Driving licence. hospital. Ex.A8 Bunch of medical bills. Ex.A9 Bills of Oxygen hospital. Ex.A10 Prescriptions Ex.A11 Summary issued by Oxygen hospital. Ex.A12 X. Ray films

ExA.13 CT scan films Ex.A14 Copy of insurance policy. Ex.A15 Pattedar passbook.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, (I Addl. Dist. Judge ), Nizamabad. FAC: Prl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

Order Record 511 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CRL.MP/100275/2016	N. Naga Raju Goud vs The state through Ex PS Bichkunda	29 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100276/2016	N. Raju Goud vs The state Excise PS Bichkunda	29 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100283/2016	Ramgonalla Ganga Goud vs The state through PS Excise range Nizamabad	29 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100284/2016	Bairagoni Chinna SwamyGoud vs The state through Excise Range Nizamabad	29 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100289/2016	Sunketa Srinivas Goud vs The state through Excise PS Nizamabad	29 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/1100237/2008	Kailash Venkatesh vs Gaddam Balaiah	29 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100288/2016	Bhagirath vs The state through Excise Yellareeddy	28 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100271/2016	Yerukala Sathish Goud vs The state through PS Excise Bodhan	27 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100272/2016	B. Raja Goud vs The state through Excise Range Nizamabaf	27 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100273/2016	Perumalla Srinivas Goud vs The state through PS Excise Range Nizamabad	27 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/514/2015	Smt. Bonthala Lingavva vs Nema Ram	23 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/515/2015	gajula Gouse vs Mr. Nema Ram	23 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100263/2016	Lingala Sathyana Goud vs The state through PS Excise Nizamabad	23 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100264/2016	Gopal Vittal Dontulwad vs The state Excise Bichkunda	23 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100530/2012	Shaik Akram Ali vs T.Praveen	22 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100260/2016	Kanukutla Narayana vs The state through Excise PS Banswada	22 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100261/2016	Chukka Dasta Goud vs The state through Excise PS Banswada	22 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100267/2016	Koppula Prashanth vs The state through PS Makloor	22 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100269/2016	Pipavath Jinna vs The state through PS Sirikonda	22 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100274/2016	Chown Namdev vs The state through PS Dichpally	22 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CMA/100024/2014	Bogadameedi Bhasker vs Municipal Council, Armoor rep. by its Commissioner	21 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CMA/100025/2014	Bogadameedi Bhasker vs Muncipal Concil Armoor rep by its commissioner	21 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/100204/2016	Smt. Afshan Zakir vs To whom so ever it may concern	20 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/100125/2014	The State through PS Morthad vs Bathula Murali abd another	20 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100248/2016	Kandikanti Raju Goud vs The state throuh PS Town, III Nizamabad	20 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100253/2016	Jadhav Namdev vs The state through Excise Bichkunda	20 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/900053/2013	Smt Kanur Laxmi vs D. Srinivas	20 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100247/2016	Kommula Ravindar Reddy vs The state through Excise Nizamabad	16 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100249/2016	Gudishela Narsa goud vs The state through Excise, Nizamabad	16 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/100013/2015	K.Manohar Reddy vs L.Chandrashekar Reddy	15 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100234/2016	Byri Nara goud vs The state through Excise Bichkunda	15 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100235/2016	Kista Goud vs The state through Excise Bichkunda	15 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100236/2016	Marri Naresh Goud vs The state through Excise Banswada	15 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100237/2016	T.Chandrashekar Goud vs The state through Excise Banswada	15 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100238/2016	K.Sailoo vs The state through Excise Banswada	15 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100239/2016	Vittal Goud vs The state Excise Banswada	15 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100246/2016	Ch. Nagaraj goud vs Vsc	15 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100245/2016	Kethavath Lambadi Ramesh vs The state pS Devanpally	13 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/100145/2016	Palnati Neelima vs To whom so ever it may concern	09 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/100075/2015	The State through PS Dharpally vs Medipally Srinivas Reddy	09 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100762/2013	Chetpally Gangadhar vs V.Prakash	08 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100319/2013	Md. Amjad Khan vs B.Jaya Venkata Redy	08 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/900315/2013	Smt.Elivi Pushpa vs B.Jaya venkatareddy	08 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/900316/2013	Elivi Vishnu vs B.Jaya venkata Reddy	08 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/900317/2013	Elivi Narayana vs B.Jaya Venkatareddy	08 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/900318/2013	Smt.Kasula Nagavva vs B.Jaya Venkatareddy	08 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/900320/2013	Macherla Sai Swetha vs B.Jaya Venkatreddy	08 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/900321/2013	Smt.Macharla Anuradha vs B.Jaya venkatareddy	08 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100058/2015	Kadamanchi Shyayama vs Varuna Integrated Logistics Pvt Ltd., Harayana	07 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100484/2010	Sunke Tukkavva vs Sujala Pipes P.Ltd Rep-Proprietor	07 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100485/2010	Asila Sayana vs Sujala Pipes P Ltd Rep-Propritor	07 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/10042/2015	Gayakwad Pandarainath vs The state through PS Nandipet	07 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/100212/2015	Nimmala Laxmi vs Nimmala Ashok	07 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
G.W.O.P/10058/2016	Smt. Ameena Begum vs To whom so ever it may concern	07 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100360/2014	Smt.Gurrapu Mamatha vs The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kamareddy Depot	06 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.NDPS/100012/2014	The State through PS Pitlam vs A1 Gokul M.Chandurkar	06 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100225/2016	Ranga Dubba Goud vs SHO Excise Kamareddy	02 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100226/2016	J.Nagaraju Goud vs SHO Excise Kamareddy	02 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100229/2016	The state through Proh. and Excise Station Nizamab vs Malovath Narayana	02 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100230/2016	Dudde Ashok vs The state through PS Lingampet	02 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100820/2013	Gangindla Devai vs Ms Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Hyderabad	01 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100098/2011	Haneefa Begum vs A.Madhukar Reddy	12 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100320/2015	Gadivoini Jalba vs Vallabhaneni Rajyalaxmi	12 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100332/2014	Gone Ramulu vs Mohd. Sirajuddin	12 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100495/2014	Sunkari Ramulu vs Pallikonda Sai Kumar	12 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100655/2011	M.narsaiah. vs K.Gangaram.	10 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/900093/2013	A.Ramulu vs Ch.Gangaram	10 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100645/2014	Thiprisihetty Lavanya vs Chakali Sailu	09 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100692/2013	Y Jayasheela Kandula Jayasheela vs Tenzing Transports Privat Ltd	09 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100968/2012	Cheppala Ranender Goud vs Narendra Mishra	09 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/543/2015	P. Vittal vs Banoth Jagan	05 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/544/2015	J. Pavan Kumar vs Banoth Jagan	05 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100402/2013	Battu Chinna Poshetty @ Bhuganna vs Syed Bakar	05 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100403/2013	Valgote Sayamma vs Syed Bakar	05 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/900026/2013	Shaik Abubakar vs D.Jaleel	05 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100961/2012	Danavath Booli vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation	03 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100962/2012	Paltya Chilku vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation	03 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/100321/2014	The State through PS Kotagiri rep. by PP Nzb vs Nenavath Gurunath	02 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100691/2013	Dondadi Ganga Mallu vs APSRTC MD, Musheerabad, Hyd	19 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/100093/2015	The State rep. by Drugs Inspector Nizamabad vs V.Srinivas	19 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/100152/2016	Battikadi Kishan Goud vs The state through PS Excise Station Yellareddy	19 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/100162/2016	J.Kishore Goud vs The State through Proh. and Excise, Armoor	19 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/100163/2016	Bardal Ramesh and others vs The State through SHO Excise, Bichkunda	19 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRL.MP/100143/2016	Battikadi Kishan Goud vs The state through PS Excise, Yellareddy	19 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100378/2011	Nayakwadi Lalitha vs L.Sanjeeva reddy.	18 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100922/2013	Rasheeda Begum vs The Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad	18 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/10045/2015	Jogammagari Raja Goud vs The state through PS Tadwai	18 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100401/2014	Bobbili Shankar vs The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyd.	13 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100518/2014	Asadithota Janakamma vs Rahul Anil Bamb	13 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100624/2012	Mohd. Anif vs Maloth Mohan	13 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/100145/2014	Merugu Suresh vs The State through PS Dharpally rep. by PP Nzb	13 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.NDPS/100005/2015	The State through P and E, Armoor rep. by PP Nzb vs Maddi Srikanth Goud	12 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/100148/2016	Edigi Anja Goud vs The state through PS Excise Station Banswada	12 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/100157/2016	K. Karthik vs The state through PS Jukkal	12 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100393/2011	Komanpally Sravan. vs Harnhajan Singh Multani.	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/100106/2015	The State through PS Town-IV vs Toparam Gangadhar	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/100119/2015	Kalledi Gangadhar vs The state through SI of police IV town, Nzb	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/100259/2014	The State through PS IV town, Nizamabad vs Punyapu Srinivas @ Vasu	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/100312/2014	The State through PS Domakonda rep. by PP Nzb vs Mentla Sanjeev	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/100145/2016	Mushir Ahmed , Musheer vs The state through PS Town V Nzb	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—

Showing 100 of 511 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jun 2016		61
May 2016		17
Apr 2016		16
Mar 2016		54
Feb 2016		54
Jan 2016		52
Dec 2015		29
Nov 2015		40
Oct 2015		20
Sep 2015		30
Aug 2015		13
Jul 2015		51

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri K. Raveendra Singh handled?

Sri K. Raveendra Singh has handled 526 court orders since 2013 at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 16 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri K. Raveendra Singh hear?

Based on available records, Sri K. Raveendra Singh primarily handles Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Criminal matters (CRL, Sessions Cases) and Civil matters (Appeal Suits, Execution Petitions) at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri K. Raveendra Singh currently posted?

Sri K. Raveendra Singh is posted as Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex, Nizamabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri K. Raveendra Singh available online?

Yes. 25 judgments by Sri K. Raveendra Singh are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri K. Raveendra Singh dispose cases?

Sri K. Raveendra Singh disposes approximately 16 cases per month, based on 526 orders handled over their tenure at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri K. Raveendra Singh serving?

Sri K. Raveendra Singh has been serving at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex since 2013.

Case Types

MVOP 57%

CRL 14%

CRLMP 13%

SC 9%

AS 2%

EP 2%

G 2%

CRLA 2%

Posting History

Jun 2016 — Jun 2016

Prl. District and Sessions Judge
Jan 2016 — Mar 2016

Prl. District and Sessions Judge · 12 orders
Jun 2015 — Jul 2015

I Addl. District and Sessions Judge
May 2015 — Jun 2016

I Addl. District and Sessions Judge · 12 orders
May 2015 — Jun 2016

I Addl. District and Sessions Judge · 395 orders
May 2015 — Jun 2016

I Addl. District and Sessions Judge · 54 orders
Oct 2013 — Dec 2013

SPL.Judge for Trail of Cases Under SC/ST · 53 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri.D.Durgaprasad

Judge, Family Court-cum-III Addl. District and Ses...

72 orders

MS Chaitanya Angari

Prl. Junior Civil Judge

4 orders

Pamujula Srinivasa Rao

I Addl. JFCM Judge

1 orders

Vaddi Hari Kumar

Spl. JFCM For Excise Judge

839 orders

Ms. M.KeerthiRaj

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge

6 orders

P.sai Sudha

Senior Civil Judge

178 orders

G.V.N Bharatha Laxmi

Prl. District and Sessions Judge

397 orders

Smt.Harisha

I Addl. District and Sessions Judge

42 orders

S Narayana

SPL.Judge for Trail of Cases Under SC/ST

1 orders

Smt. D.varoodhini

Fast Track Special Judge for POCSO Act Cases

16 orders

← View all judges at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex