Smt.Lakshmi Kameshwari

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE'S –

CUM XIII ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE'S CYBERABAD AT

L.B NAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: SMT.D.LAKSHMI KAMESWARI, XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE'S –

CUM XIII ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS

JUDGE'S CYBERABAD AT L.B NAGAR, RANGA

REDDY DISTRICT.

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017

SC.No. 342 OF 2012

1. P.R.C. No. : 22/2012

2. Name of the complainant : Inspector of police, PS Rajendranagar

3. Name of the accused : A1: Khatiza Begum W/o Mohd. Ismail, aged 25 years, R/o H.No. 4-25-1-6/C, Suleman Nagar-C, ShivarampallyRoad, Rajendranagar N/o H.No. 17-9- 198/60, Yasrab Nagar, Chota Phool, Yakathpura, Hyderabad.

A2: Mohd. Ismail S/o Md. Ibrahim, age 35 years, Painter R/oH.No.4-25-1/6/C, Shivarampally Road, Permanent Resident of H.no. 8-2-684/39/1, NBT Nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

A3: Obaidur Rahaman S/o Abdul Jaleel, Age 42 years, Occ: Electrician, H.No. 8-1-402/368, Gulshan colony, Seven Tombs, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

4. Crime No. : 725/2011

5. Offence: U/Sec. 302 R/w 34 IPC

6. Prosecution conducted by : Smt P.Vidyavathy

7. Accused defended by : Sri MD.Rafathullah

8. Case Committed by : VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar.

2

9. Finding of the court: In the result, the accused are acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the charges leveled against them and MO1 to 5, 13 & 14 shall be destroyed after appeal. MOs 11 & 12 which are the cell phones of Nokia model are totally spoiled due to wear and tear and due to abandment for all these years, therefore they have no monetary value and they also are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time. Mos 6 to 10 are the passport, business card, Pr Card, Driving License and PAN Card of the deceased. The record does not show the existence of any kith and kin to the deceased except PW-6, who is the nature sister. Therefore Mos 6 to 10 shall be returned to the PW-6 if she is willing to take within a specified time or otherwise those are to be destroyed if she did not turn up to the notice.

This Sessions case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Mrs P.Vidyavathi, Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri MD.Rafathullah , counsel for Accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of police, PS Rajendranagar filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 in Crime No. 725/2011 Under section 302 R/w 34 IPC.

2.The charge sheet contents in brief are that Mr. E.Keshavulu,

PC 4936 of PS Rajendranagar, lodged compliant on 22.08.2011 at 14.45 hrsthat when he along with Sri Syed Ashwaq, HC 116 was doing blue cold duty and at about 1.45 Pm when they were at Sulamen

Nagar, a phone call was received from Mr. E.Prabhakar PC 4043 of 3 Rajendranagar PS that they got information that a person at Suleman

Nagar was killed, and on such information he went to the house bearing door No. 4-25-1/6/C where there was a gathering and a male person aged about 60 years was lying dead with cut throat injury and there was heavy blood stains on the floor and also to the walls and that he also observed a lady was standing in that room whose dress was severely blood stained and on enquiry, the lady disclosed her name as Khatiza Begum and that the room belonged to her and that the deceased Shaik Raheem is her former husband and as the movements of that lady are suspicious, the defacto complainant suspected the lady and some others in the death of the deceased.

3. The Inspector of Police (LW-22), Rajendranagar Ps, registered the complaint as Crime No. 725/2011, U/s. 302 IPC against the accused no.1 and dispatched the original FIR to the court and took up the investigation. During such course, he rushed to the scene of offence along with staff and took Smt Khatiza Begum (A1) in to custody and enquired about the dead body lying in her house and on enquiry she admitted to have committed the offence along with accused 2 & 3 and thereafter, the inspector of police (LW-22) conducted the panchanama of scene of offence in the presence of Sri

B.Mariyanna and Mohd. Gouse (LWs12 & 13) and drew the rough sketch of the scene of offence and got the scene of offence photographed. The inspector has recorded the confessional statement of the accused no.1 in the presence of same panchas and seized a blood stained cutter, a pouch from the waist of the deceased in which the passport of the deceased and other identity cards were available 4 and also seized a nokia cell phone, the blood stained cloths of the accused ie a white selwar and kameez under the cover of panchnama.

The inspector examined and recorded the statements of LWs 1 to 3 and shifted the dead body to Osmania General Hospital and the accused no.1 was arrested at 20.00 hrs on 22.08.2011 and she was subjected for judicial custody on 23.08.2011.

4. The further investigation was conducted by another inspector of police, Rajendranagar (LW-21) and on such assumption of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of LWs 4 to 6 and conducted inquest over the dead body at Osmania Mortuary in the presence of Sri P.Ramprabhu Naidu and Sri P.Ganesh (Lws 14 & 15) and thereafter the dead body was subjected for postmortem examination. The inspector of police (LW-22) effected the arrest of

Mohd. Ismile (A2) and Mohd. Rehaman (A3) on 29.08.2011 and on interrogation in the presence of Mr. G.Raghu Goud and Mr. B.Das

Goud (LWs 16 & 17), they voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence along with the accused No.1 and the inspector has seized a cell phone, a bond paper and blood stained cloths from accused no.2 & 3 under the cover of panchanam and accused No.2 & 3 were also subjected for judicial custody. The medical officer (Lw-18) who has conducted the the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the death of the deceased was due to cut throat injury. The inspector of police (Lw-22) has sent the material objects to the

Director FSL for analysis and he also seized the Nikhanama and two photographs from the mother of accused No.1 (LW-9) and the statements of LWs 9 to 11 are recorded by LW-21.

5

5.As the investigation revealed that the deceased Shaik

Raheem @ Raghunatha Reddy, who is the former husband of the accused No.1 divorced her twice by pronouncing Triple Talak and during that wedlock they were blessed with a boy and a girl and that the paternity of the baby girl was not accepted by the deceased Shaik

Raheem @ Raghunatha Reddy and thereafter the accused No.1 has married Mohd. Ismile (A2) and during their wedlock she begot a male child and when the accused No. 1 & 2 were leading marital life, the deceased Shaik Raheem @ Raghunatha Reddy again entered in to her life over phone and forced her to divorce accused no.2 and come back to him along with the children and the proposal of the deceased was not acceptable to the accused no.1 and in view of the proposal of the deceased, there were misunderstandings between accused No. 1 & 2 and accordingly they both together decided to eliminate the deceased and in such course they took the assistance of Mr. Rahman (A3) who is a close friend of accused No.2 and accused No.1 called the deceased and made him to believe that she got separated from the accused

No.2 and made the deceased to come to her house and when the deceased and the accused No.1 were talking, the accused No. 2 & 3 came at about 13.30 hrs and all the three caught him and when the deceased tried to escape from the clutches of the accused, they have dragged him and when accused No.2 & 3 firmly held him, the accused

No.1 picked up a cutter blade from her hand bag and slit his throat and the deceased died instantaneously, the charge sheet has been filed against accused No.1 to 3 U/s 302 R/w 34 IPc.

6

6. ThelearnedVIIIMetropolitanMagistrate,

Rajendranagar has taken cognizance of the case against the accused

No.1 to 3 Under section 302 R/w 34 IPC and furnished the relevant material to the accused No. 1 to 3 as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C and as the offence U/s. 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the Metropolitan Sessions Court of

Rangareddy District Division vide PRC No. 22/2012. The learned

Metropolitan Sessions Judge has numbered the case as S.C. No 342/2012 and made over the case to the Court of Addl. Metropolitan

Sessions Court. When the matter has been coming for consideration,

the case was transferred to the Court of IX Addl. District & Sessions

Judge, as per the orders of the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga

Reddy District, vide Dis.No. 8761/2012 dt 11.10.2012 and it was again transferred to this court, as per the orders of the Prl. District &

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, vide Dis.No. 8917/2013 dt Nil.

On appearance of all the accused before this court and on hearing the

Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned defense counsel, charges

U/s 302 R/w 34 IPC were framed, read over and explained to them and on their denial of guilt, the matter has been posted for trial.

7. During the course of trial before this court, PWs 1 to 15 are examined, Exs. P1 to P30 and Mos 1 to 14 are marked. The prosecution has given up LWs- 6,9,11,13,14,19 and 20. On conclusion of the evidence on prosecution side, the accused are examined U/s.

313 Cr.P.C and they stated that what all the witnesses deposed is falsehood.

7

8. On hearing of arguments of Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the Defence counsel Mr. Md.Rafathullah, the matter has been posted for judgment.

9. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the Charges leveled against all the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

10. The case of the prosecution is totally relied upon the circumstantial evidence and on the confession of the accused which lead to the recovery of material objects. The motive attributed by the prosecution to the accused to cause the death of the deceased is that the deceased Shaik Raheem @ Raghunatha Reddy is the former husband of the accused No.1 and they both got two children and after the birth of the first child, he divorced her and thereafter reunited with her and when she was again pregnant, he again divorced her and disputed the paternity of the second child and thereafter accused No. 1 married accused No.2 and begot a male child and when they were leading peaceful marital life, the deceased again tried to enter in to the life of the accused No.1 and compelled her to come back to him, which is not acceptable to her and therefore in order to get rid him, she along with the accused No.2, her second husband and the accused

No.3, who is the friend of the accused No.2 killed the deceased Shaik

Raheem @ Raghunatha Reddy.

11.It is a fact that the deceased was killed by inflecting cut throat injury. PW-10 is a medical officer who has conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. His evidence shows that the deceased totally sustained six injuries and out of them the injuries 8 1 to 3 which are mentioned in EX.P10 postmortem certificate are on the neck and on the facial parts. Injuries no. 4 & 5 are to his right thumb and on left palmer surface and those injuries can be considered as defence injuries. The injuries no. 1 to 3 shows that the culprits aimed to unconditionally kill him and attacked with a sharp object on his face and neck. The evidence of PW-10 shows that the death of the deceased is a homicidal one.

12.The motive for causing the death of the deceased is the marriage between the deceased Shaik Raheem @ Raghunatha Reddy and the accused No.1. The defence is that there was no marriage between them. In order to show that the accused No.1 is the former wife of the deceased Shaik Raheem @ Raghunatha Reddy, the prosecution has examined PW-12, who is the Naib Qazi by profession at Yakathpura. His evidence shows that the chief Qazi will be appointed under the orders of the Government and he is

M.A.Mohamood Qureshi and the chief Qazi will appoint Naib Qazis according to requirement. He further deposed that from 1999 to 2009 he was an associate with the chief Qazi and the Nikhanama dt 23.05.2003 confronted to him is in his handwriting and that it is between Abdul Raheem son of Mohammed Kareem and Shariefa bee, aged 48 years and Mumtaz Begum daughter of Shaik Osman and

Akbari Begum, 20 years. He also deposed that he performed the Nikha on that day under EX.P14 Nikhanama which is true translated under

Ex.P15. During the course of cross examination, he deposed that if either parties is a convert from any other religion, the former name will also be mentioned by going through the conversion certificate if it 9 is disclosed. He also deposed that any private person can give a conversion certificate.

13.On going through the Nikhanama and its translation which are marked as EX.P14 and P15, it appears that the name of the bridegroom is Abdul Raheem, son of Mohammed Kareem and Shariefa bee. The Nikhanama does not contain the original name of the bridegroom and whether he is a convert from Hinduism to Islam.

Whereas the name of the bride is mentioned as Mumtaz Begum,

Daughter of Shaik Osman and Akbari Begum. The witness for the

Nikhanama are Shaik Osman and Mohammed Ismail. The prosecution did not examine the witnesses to the Nikhanama in order to identify the Bride and the Groom under the Nikhanama . The Naib Qazi ie the

Pw-12, who said to have performed to Nikha, deposed that he cannot identify the parties under the Nikhanama as it was held long back. The

Nikhanama did not contain the photographs of the Bride and Groom and the Nikha was not registered. In view of the lack of previous name of the Bridegroom and his identity particulars, it cannot be considered that the bride groom under Ex.P14 and P15 is the deceased Shaik

Raheem @ Raghunatha Reddy. The Nikhanama marked as Ex.P14 and

P15 shows that the name of the father of the bride groom under the document is noted as Mohammed Karim. It is not the case of the prosecution that the father of the deceased is also a convert in to

Islam. On the other hand the name of the bride is also not tallying because the bride under Ex.P14 & P15 is Mumtaz Begum, where as the accused No.1 before the court is Khatiza Begum. There is no material

before the court Mumtaz Begum is also known as Khatiza Begum.

10 Therefore I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution could not prove that the Bride and Groom under Ex.P14 and P15 Nikhanama are the deceased Shaik Raheem @ Raghunatha Reddy and the accused

No.1.

14.The criminal law was set in to motion when Rajendra Nagar police got the information about the death of a person in Suleman

Nagar and the constables on blue cold duty were instructed to inspect the house and on the complaint lodged by a police constable ie PW-3,

Pws 1 to 3 are the constables of Rajendranagar PS. PWs 1 & 3 deposed that when they inspected the house bearing No. 4-25/1/6/6 they observed the dead body of a male with heavy bleeding injuries and a lady aged about 25 years was standing in that room and that her dress was with heavy blood stains. They also deposed that the lady introduced herself as Khatiza Begum and that the deceased

Raheem is her former husband. PW-1 & 3 identified the accused No.1 as the lady who was standing beside the dead body on that day. They have stated that they suspected the accused No.1 basing on the answers given by her, when she was enquired.

15.According to the prosecution, PW-4 is the owner of the house in which the accused No.1 along with her husband ie the accused No.2 has been staying as a tenant. But PW-4 deposed that he entrusted his house at Suleman Nagar to a broker and on inducting tenants, the broker used to give him rents and that he does not know who are the tenants in his house in the year 2011. He stated that he does not know anything about the case. The evidence of PW-4 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution in identifying the accused as 11 a resident of the rented portion, where the deceased Shaik Raheem @

Raghunatha Reddy was found dead with heavy bleeding wounds

16. PWs 5 & 6 are the cousin and the natural sister of the deceased Raghunatha Reddy. Their evidence show that the

Raghunatha Reddy has migrated to USA about more than 45 years back and out of the three brothers and one sister, he is the eldest.

They both deposed that the deceased Raghunatha Reddy has acquired

Ac 2.00 gts land in Dronachalam known as Dhone. Pw-5 deposed that the deceased told him that he has converted in to islam and changed his name in to a Muslim name, which he does not remember and that he married a Muslim lady. He did not say the particulars of that Muslim lady whom the deceased said to have married. Pws5 & 6 deposed that on information of the death of the deceased Raghunatha Reddy, they were asked to identify the dead body and they have identified the dead body as that of Raghunatha Reddy. The evidence of PWs 5 & 6 is sufficient to believe that the deceased is Raghunatha Reddy, who was aged about 67 years at the time of his death and that they got the information that the deceased Raghunatha Reddy has converted in to

Islam. Pw-6, who is the natural sister of the deceased Raghunatha

Reddy deposed that her deceased brother disconnected the relationship with relatives and he was not visiting the relatives and that she does not know whether he was having any children. The evidence of PWs 5 & 6 further shows that initially the deceased

Raghunath Reddy married an American Lady and divorced her. But there is no information before the court regarding the past life of the deceased Raghunath Reddy.

12

16. PW-7 is said to be the neighbor of the accused No.1 & 2. He deposed that about 4 years back he observed when a person was chased by 10 persons by holding knifes in the gullies ie the streets of that locality. Except the above statement he did not give any clue regarding the incident and also regarding the identity of the accused and the deceased. But it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased Shaik Raheem was chased by a group of persons in the streets of Suleman Nagar. Therefore the evidence of PW-7 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution regarding the incident that was occurred in his neighbouring portion.

17. PW-8 is the panch witness for the confession of the accused

No.1. His evidence shows that on 22.08.2011 Rajendranagar Police taken him to a house at Suleman Nagar, as he was the president of

MIM Party of that area, where a murder has been occured. He deposed that he observed blood stains on the floor, a knife and Axa Blade on the floor. He also deposed that a lady was there in that room and that there were blood stains on her dress. He did not identify that lady with reference to accused No.1 as she was stated to be in Burkha. He identified the Axa blade as MO1. He deposed that he does not remember the rest of the things the lady has stated on that day.

Except MO1 he did not identify any other articles. PW-15 is the

Investigating Officer who has stated that under the cover of confessional panchanama which was recorded in the presence of PW-8 he has seized the passport and other cards pertaining to the deceased

Shaik Raheem @ Raghunatha Reddy from a pouch which was in his waist belt and also the blood with a cotton swab and the white colour 13 shalwar kameez of the accused No.1. But PW-8 did not say anything about the seizure of the rest of the items which are marked as MOs 2, 3, 6 to 11. According to the evidence of Pw-8, as the lady was in

Burkha, he could not identify that lady with reference to the accused

No.1. But the police did not seize the Burkha and the evidence of PW- 15 shows that the white colour Shalwar Kameez of the accused No.1 is only seized. There is no clarity in the evidence of the prosecution whether the Burkha of the lady was blood stained or the internal

Shalwar Kameez of the lady is blood stained. Pws- 1 & 3 who said to have seen the accused No.1 for the first time in that room did not say that she was in Burkha when they saw her. PW-9 is the panch witness for the inquest, but he simply identify his signature as EX.P9 and he deposed that he did not see the dead body. PW-9 is the driver and he deposed that on 23.08.2011 he brought PWs 5 & 6 to the hospital in their car being engaged by them as a driver. PWs 11 & 14 are the panch witnesses for the alleged confession of the accused No.2 & 3, but unfortunately they both turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and simply identified their signatures as EX.P12, P13, P17 & P18.

18.PWs 13 & 15 are the Investigating Officers. Pw-13 has conducted the inquest over the dead body and recorded the statements of some of the witnesses. PW-15 is the inspector of police who has conducted the most of the investigation. He registered the

FIR which is marked as EX.P19. His evidence shows that when he visited the scene of offence, he observed that the accused No.1 was standing beside the dead body, whose dress was blood stained and 14 she was holding a blood stained Axa blade in her hand, whereas Pws 1 & 3 who have seen her for the first time after the murder of the deceased did not say that when they saw her she was holding Axa

Blade. Whereas PW-8, who is the panch witness for the confession of the accused No.1 has stated that when he visited the spot a knife, an

Axa blade were lying on the floor. All the three versions of the prosecution witnesses regarding the possession of the Axa blade is contradictory. The evidence of PWs-1 & 3 is that they have gone to the spot at about 2.00 pm, whereas the Investigating Officer ie PW- 15 has gone to the spot at about 2.30 pm. The probability that the culprit holds the weapon which is said to have been used by her till the police comes is doubtful.

19.While attempting to connect the accused 1 to 3 to the cause of the death of the deceased Shaik Raheem @ Raghunatha

Reddy, the prosecution has tried to prove it through seizure of the material objects. Even though PW-8, who is the panch witness for the confession of accused No.1 stated that a lady confessed before him that the deceased lived with her and that they both got married, he did not identify the lady with reference to the accused No.1. His evidence shows that an Axa Blade and Knife were seized in his presence. But according to the case of the prosecution, only one weapon was used ie the Axa Blade, but there is no explanation by the prosecution regarding the knife. The panch witnesses for the alleged confession of the accused No.2 & 3 totally turned hostile to the version of the prosecution. In view of the above stated discrepancy regarding the location of the Axa blade whether it was held by the accused No.1 15 or whether it was lying on the floor and whether it is probable for any culprit to hold the weapon used for the commission of the offence till the police arrive there, the uncorroborated evidence of the investigating officer with respect to the confession of the accused No.

1 to 3 which lead to the recovery of the material objects is not safe to be believed.

20.According the prosecution, out of the wedlock between the deceased Shaik Raheem @ Raghunatha Reddy and the accused No.1, they had one son and one daughter. The investigation of the prosecution is totally silent about the children. When the accused No.1 disputes the marriage between her and the deceased Shaik Raheem @

Raghunatha Reddy, the investigating agency would have taken steps to know about the paternity of the children which ultimately would be able to reveal the relationship if any between the accused No.1 and the deceased Shaik Raheem @ Raghunatha Reddy. The only motive attributed by the prosecution for causing the death of the deceased is that the accused No.1 wants to get rid of the deceased, who is her former husband. There is no sufficient material before the court that the accused No.1 and the deceased married together and lead marital life and begot children. There is absolutely no material before the court where the accused No.1 and the deceased Shaik Raheem @

Raghunatha Reddy lived together. There is no record before the court that the deceased, who is identified as Raghunatha Reddy by PWs 5 & 6 has converted in to Islam and married the accused No.1 and lead marital life for a sufficient period and begot children.

16

21.From the fore going discussion, I am of the clear view that the circumstances tried to be established by the prosecution are not at all sufficient to draw the necessary inference which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution could not connect the accused to the cause of the death of the deceased. Therefore the accused could not be found guilty.

22.In the result, the accused are acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the charges leveled against them. MO1 to 5, 13 & 14 shall be destroyed after appeal. MOs 11 & 12 which are the cell phones of

Nokia model are totally spoiled due to wear and tear and due to abandment for all these years, therefore they have no monetary value and they also are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time. Mos 6 to 10 are the passport, business card, PR Card, Driving License and

PAN Card of the deceased. The record does not show the existence of any kith and kin to the deceased except PW-6, who is his natural sister. Therefore Mos 6 to 10 shall be returned to the PW-6 if she is willing to take them, within a specified time or otherwise those are to be destroyed if she did not turn up to the notice.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of April, 2017

XIII ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution

PW-1: Syed Ashwaq

PW-2: E.Prabhakar

PW-3: E.Keshavlu 17 PW-4: Mohd. Saleem Kahn

PW-5: T.Jayachandra Reddy

PW-6: J.Renuka Reddy

PW-7: Mohd. Abdul Aziz

PW-8: B.Marriama

PW-9: P.Ganesh

PW-10: Shaik Khaja Moinuddin

PW-11: G.Raghu Goud

PW-12: Mohd. Ibrahim Ali

PW-13: K.Ramesh

PW-14: Badam Das Goud

PW-15: S.Jayram

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution:

Ex.P1: is the signature on the complaint by Pw-3

EX.P2: is the 161 Statement by PW-4

EX.P3: is the 161 Statement by PW-6

EX.P4: is the 161 Statement by PW-7

EX.P5: is the signature by PW-8

EX.P6: is the signature by PW-8

Ex.P7: is the signature by PW-8

EX.P8: is the signature by PW-8

EX.P9: is the signature by PW-9

EX.P10: is the PME Report by Pw-10

EX.P11: is the final opinion by Pw-10

EX.P12: is the signature by PW-11

EX.P13: is the signature by PW-11

EX.P14: is the Nikhanama

EX.P15: is the true translation

EX.P16: is the inquest report

Ex.P17: is the Signature by PW-14

EX.P18: is the Signature by PW-14

EX.P19: is the FIR

EX.P20: is the Admissible portion of the confessional statement and observations of the scene of offence.

18 EX.P21: is the rough sketch of scene of offence.

EX.P22 P23 are the admissible portion of the confessional statement of

A2 & A3.

EX.P24 & P25 are the seizure reports

EX.P26: is the FSL Report

EX.P27: is the original Nikhanama

EX.P28: is the true translation

EX.P29: is the set of 13 photographs

EX.P30: is the case property form

Material Objects Marked

MO1: Axa blade

MO2: Blood Stained cotton saree

MO3: Blood stained dress of A1

MO4 &MO5: Blood stained dress of A2 & A3

MO6: passport

MO7: Business Check card

MO8: PR card

MO9: Driving license

MO10: PAN card

MO11: Cell phone of the deceased

MO12: blue colour cell phone of the A1

MO13: Dress of the deceased

MO14: Bond paper of Rs. 50/-

XIII ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT:SMT D. LAKSHMI KAMESWARI, B.SC., B.L.

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONSJUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

DATED THIS THE DAY 20th OF APRIL, 2017

O.P NO. 875 OF 2014

Between:

1. Smt Rama Devi W/o Late Bobbala Ram Reddy aged 45 years, Occ: House hold.

2. B.Mahesh Kumar Reddy S/o Late Bobbala Ram Reddy aged 21 years, Occ: Student.

3. B.Shiva Prasad Reddy S/o Late Bobbala Ram Reddy aged 19 years, Occ: Student.

4. B.Narsi Reddy S/o B.Lakshma Reddy F/o Late (died) Bobbala Ram Reddy, aged 75 years, Occ: Nil.

5. B.Lachamma W/o B.Narsi Reddy, aged 68 years, Occ: House wife.

All R/o H.No. 8-6-13/A, RTC Colony, Chintalkunta, LB Nagar, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

…..Petitioners

AND

1. K.Venkateshwarlu S/o K.Lingaiah, aged 45 years, Occ: Owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 11 W 7858 R/o H.No. 16-2-752/K/70/A/2, Sai Ganga Colony, Shakeshwar Bazar, Hyderabad, Telangana.

2. Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., #4A, H.No. 3-9, Sreeraman Towers, Opp: Kala Niketa, Hanuman Nagar, Hyderabad.

......Respondents

This O.P coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sir D.Venkat Reddy, counsel for the petitioners, and Sri.

K.Srinivas Rao, counsel for the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 remained set exparte and after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

2

1. This petition is filed U/s. 166 of M.V. Act 1988 and

Rules 455 of APMV Rules 1989 R/w sec 140 of the A.P.M.V.Act 1988, for compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- by the wife, children and parents of the deceased Late Bobbala Ram Reddy, aged 54 years, who died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.06.2014, from the respondents claiming to be the dependents of the deceased.

2. The petition averments in brief are that the petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are the children and petitioners 5 & 6 are the parents of the deceased Bobbala Ram Reddy, who was aged about 54 years at the time of his death. The petitioners contend that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and by doing

Textile business, in addition to Agriculture, in an extant of AC 12.38 gts of land and was earning up to Rs. 25,000/- per month and he was contributing his earnings for the maintenance and welfare of the family, while so on 20.06.2014 at 9:00 am, when the deceased Late Bobbala

Ram Reddy, was proceeding on his bike bearing No. AP 29 BG 0556 towards Hyderabad from Mersigudem, Chityala, Nalgonda District and when the deceased reached near Ramoji Film City Gate, Abdullapurmet,

Hayathnagar, one lorry bearing No. AP 11 W 7858 which was coming in the opposite direction from Hyderabad towards

Vijayawada, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, while taking a right turn opposite to the main gate of Ramoji Film City, dashed against the bike of the deceased, as a result the rider / deceased fell down and the lorry ran over him, as a result he died on the spot.

3

3.The case was registered as Crime No.444/2014 of

Hayathnagar PS, U/s. 304-A I.P.C against the driver of the lorry bearing

No. AP 11 W 7858.

4.Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the family members were severely shocked and the wife of the deceased lost her beloved husband, the children lost their father at a tender age and the parents lost their son in their old age. Therefore the petitioners made the claim for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- against the respondents who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, claiming that they are the dependents of the deceased.

5.The respondent No.1 remained exparte.

6.The respondent No.2 filed counter by denying the petition averments including the occurrence of the accident on 20.06.2014 and the nexus between the accident and the death of the deceased. The

Respondent No.2 also denied the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and contended that the petitioners have managed to get the crime registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, even though there was no negligence on his part and contended that the income of the deceased averred by the petitioners is imaginary and that the claim of the petitioners is exorbitant and prayed for the dismissal of the petition. The respondents also sought for the strict proof of the existence of the policy to the offending vehicle as on the date of accident and contends that the driver of the offending vehicle has no valid driving license at the time of the accident and that as the 1st respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation and therefore seeks for the dismissal of the petition.

4

7. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been framed for trial?

1.Whether the accident was occurred on 20.06.2014 at about 9.00 a.m near RFC Gate Abdullapurmet on NH65, Hayathnagar

R.R.District causing death of B.Ram Reddy due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 11 W 7858?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3.To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry, PWs 1 & 2 are examined and

Exs. A1 to A23 are marked. RW-1 was examined and EX.B1 is marked.

On hearing the arguments of both side counsels, the matter has been reserved for orders.

Issues 1 and 2:

9.The petitioners are the wife, children and parents the deceased Bobbala Ram Reddy, who was aged about 54 years at the time of the accident which resulted in his death. The 1st petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, got herself examined as PW1. She deposed to the contents of the petition that on 20.06.2014 at 9.00 am, when her husband, while going on his bike from Mersiguddem village towards

Hyderabad, it was dashed by the offending lorry in front of the main gate of Ramoji Film City, as a result, he died on the spot. Admittedly she is not an eye witness to the accident. In order to show the rash and negligent conduct of the driver of the offending vehicle, she got Pw-2 examined. The evidence of PW-2 shows that on receipt of a telephone call that his brother in law ie., the deceased Bobbala Ram Reddy met with an accident opposite the main gate of Ramoji Film City, he along 5 with the son of the deceased went to the spot and observed that the a water tanker lorry was aside and the dead body of the deceased was lying on the road. During the course of cross examination, he deposed that he is not an eye witness to the incident and he arrived to the spot within 10 to 15 minutes after the accident. EX.A3 is the crime detail form along with the rough sketch of the scene of offence. The rough sketch shows that there is a divider in front of the gate of Ramoji Film

City and the offending vehicle has gone towards the gate of Ramoji Film

City and the two wheeler of the deceased was lying in the middle road.

As could be seen from the circumstances it can be inferred that when the deceased was coming from Vijayawada side towards Hyderabad and when his two wheeler reached Ramoji Film City, the driver of the offending vehicle, who was coming from Hyderabad towards Ramoji Film

City, while taking a right turn at divider did not take the reasonable care of giving signal to the ongoing vehicles. The road on which the accident was occurred is the National Highway 65. The accident spot is located in the outskirts and at the time of accident ie at about 9.00 am there will be less traffic. Generally the vehicles go at a reasonable speed while going on a national high way, when there is moderate traffic. It is the duty of the driver of the offending vehicle when crossing the road at a junction, to take reasonable care to go to the other side of the road. The circumstances of the case clearly show that the driver has totally failed to take the ordinary care which would have been taken by a prudent man. Therefore even though there are no eye witnesses to the incident, it can be inferred from the circumstances that the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent caused the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased on the spot, who is the master of the family consisting of wife, two children and parents.

6

10. In addition to the oral evidence of PW-1, she also exhibited

Ex. A1 and A2, which are the certified copies of the FIR and the charge sheet. EX.A3 is the Crime Detail Form Ex.A5 is the postmortem certificate which shows that the deceased died due to head injury. Ex.A4 is the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector which shows that there are no mechanical defects in the vehicle.

11.The evidence on record shows that the petitioners 2 & 3 who are the sons of the deceased and 1st petitioner, are still students and they are studying in Narayana Educational Institutions EX.P20 is a bunch of fee payment receipts for the education of both the petitioners 2 & 3. The documents marked as EX.A20 shows that the deceased has admitted his children in corporate colleges and also admitted them for coaching by spending huge amounts. The record further shows that the 1st petitioner who is the wife of the deceased is a house wife and not capable of earning anything.

12.The evidence of the 1st petitioner / Pw-1 shows that her husband was doing textile business in addition to agriculture. She admitted that the textile business is under a partnership firm and that she is a partner in that business. She deposed that her name was sponsored for the partnership business with the relief of that, the business will be prosperous if it is in her name, but the business is being done by her husband only. The documents produced by the 1st petitioner /PW-1 it can be safely considered that unless a minimum monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- is earned, he may not be able to maintain such standard of life. EX.A13 shows that the deceased is holding an extant of Ac 12.38 gts of land in Chinakapatti Village of

Chityala Mandal. Ex.A14 is the purchase voucher of paddy dt 17.06.2014, which shows the quantity of paddy purchased from the 7 deceased by the agricultural market committee. The material produced by the petitioner / Pw-1 shows that the deceased has been leading a middle class life by educating his children in corporate colleges and doing textile business in addition to agriculture. Therefore considering his monthly income at Rs. 25,000/- is not at all exaggerated to the standard of his life.

13.The deceased was aged 54 years old at the time of accident and as guided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Sarla Varma's case’, he is entitled for an enhancement of 30% of his earnings, towards future prospects. As the deceased is the only earning member of the family and there are totally five dependents on him, 1/4th of his earnings are to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and the rest of 3/4th earning are to be considered as his contribution to the family. The multiplier eligible according to his age is “11”.

14.The Senior Executive legal of the 2nd respondent’s company is examined as RW-1 and Exhibited EX.B1, the copy of the policy which is in the name of the 1st respondent. As could be seen from the policy, it appears that it is effective from 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015, where as the accident was occurred on 20.06.2014, which is within the period of enforcement of the policy. The evidence shows that the rash and negligent conduct of driver of the 1st respondent caused the accident and that the accident was occurred during the substance of the policy.

Therefore the 2nd respondent is statutorily obliged to indemnify the liability of the 1st respondent. Therefore respondents 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

15.Basing on the above observations, the compensation is calculated here under:

TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES:

8

16. The accident was occurred on 20.06.2014 at 09.00 hrs when the deceased was hit by the lorry belonged to the 1st respondent in front of the main gate of Ramoji Film City, in which the deceased died on the spot. Immediately after the accident, the dead body of the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for complying the legal formalities. For meeting the transportation expenses and for shifting the corpse to the house for performing the final rights after the completion of the legal formalities, I feel that an amount of Rs.5000/- is reasonable under this head and the same is awarded.

CLOTHING:

17. I deem it reasonable to award an amount of Rs.2,500/- for the damages caused to the cloths and same is awarded under this head.

FUNERAL EXPENSES:

18. While awarding compensation under this head, the Apex court guided to consider the price index even under the head of Funeral expenses and the amount to be awarded under this head is not the fee paid in the crematorium or the fee paid for the use of cemetery. It was also observed that there are many other expenses in connection with the funeral basing on the religious practices which are so expensive and it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the absence of any material, a minimum amount of Rs.25,000/- is reasonable to be awarded. Therefore, I feel that it is reasonable to award an amount of Rs.25,000/- under this head and the same is awarded.

LOSS OF CONSORTIUM TO THE WIFE

19.The 1st petitioner is the wife of the deceased who was aged about less than 45 years, by the time of the death of the deceased, who direly needs the support and companionship of the husband at such an 9 age and such loss can never be compensated with any amount of money. It was held by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India that the consortium is the right of the spouse to the company, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relation with his or her mate and also held that our courts have not properly understood the non-pecuniary damages and the loss of the spouse is to be appropriately compensated and held that a minimum amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- is to be awarded towards consortium. The observations made by their Lordship's is very much applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and the first petitioner is awarded a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium as just and reasonable amount.

Therefore I feel it just to award an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards consortium to the wife and the same is awarded under this head.

LOVE AND AFFECTION TO THE CHILDREN:

20.The deceased is the father of the petitioners 2 & 3.

Unfortunately the father of the petitioners 2 & 3 died in the accident and the above petitioners are deprived of the affection of the father during their development and in the important period of their lives. The above petitioners are still studying and yet to be married after completion of studies. The absence of the father is one of the impediment for them get to a good and suitable alliance, either to a boy or to a girl. The loss occurred to the petitioners 2 & 3 can never be compensated with any amount of money, even then it is the duty of the Tribunals under Motor

Vehicles Act to quantify the loss occurred to the wife and children of the deceased. Therefore I feel that it is just to award an amount of

Rs.50,000/- to each of the children towards the loss of their love and affection towards the deceased. Therefore an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under this head.

10 LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION TO THE PARENTS:

20.The petitioner no. 4 who is the father of the deceased reported to have been died during the pendency of the petition. The

Petitioner no. 5 is the mother of the deceased who was aged about 68 years at the time of the death of the deceased. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the father of the deceased died due to the agony of the death of his son. The parents have got every right to have their final rites in the hands of the son and due to the sudden death of the deceased, the parents lost to have their opportunity of having final rites in the hands of their son. The loss caused to the petitioner No. 4 & 5, who are the parents of the deceased can never be compensated with any amount of money. Even then an attempt is made to compensate the loss of son to the parents. The petitioner No. 4 who lost her son and husband simultaneously might have suffered severe mental agony.

Therefore an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner No.4 under this head.

LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:-

22. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, the annual earning of the deceased is at Rs. 3,00,000/- with 30% enhancement towards future prospects, it arrives to Rs. 3,90,000/- and 1/4th of his earning are to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. As discussed above and the 3/4th contribution amount comes to

Rs.2,92,500/- and when it is multiplied with the eligible multiplier “11”, the amount arrives to Rs.32,17,500/-. Time and again it was assertively held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that it is the duty of the Tribunals under the Motor vehicles Act to award just and reasonable compensation to meet the standard of life style which is going to be maintained by the family members of the deceased when 11 he/she was alive. The eligible amount in this claim is not a wind fall.

The claim of the petitioners is only for Rs. 25,00,000/- whereas the eligible compensation arrived is Rs. 35,50,000/- which is more than the claim. Time and again it was held by the apex court of India that the

Tribunals under the Motor Vehicles act are not precluded from awarding more compensation than the claim. As the standard of life being maintained by the deceased in educating the children shows that they are entitled for the compensation to which they are eligible because, had the deceased not died, he would have taken the responsibility of sending his sons to higher education even for abroad. Due to the sudden death of the deceased the entire scenario of the family has been entirely changed. Therefore Under the circumstances of the case, I feel that the petitioners are entitled to be awarded the eligible compensation of Rs. 35,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five lakhs Fifty Thousand Only).

ISSUE NO.3

22.In the result, the petition is allowed with costs by awarding an amount of Rs. 35,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five lakhs Fifty Thousand

Only) together with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of recovery, jointly and severally payable by the respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner No.1 who is the wife of the deceased is awarded

Rs.24,50,000/- and out of that amount, she is at liberty to withdraw an amount of Rs. 14,50,000/- together with the interest on the entire compensation awarded to petitioners 1 to 3 and costs and the rest of

Rs.10,00,000/- shall be kept in Fixed deposit for two years.

The petitioner No. 2 & 3 who are the major sons of the deceased are awarded Rs. 3,00,000/- each and out of that amount, they are at liberty to with draw an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- each and the rest of Rs.

1,00,000/- each shall be kept in fixed deposit for two years.

12 The petitioner No. 5 who is the mother of the deceased is awarded

Rs.5,00,000/- and she is at liberty to withdraw an amount of Rs.

3,00,000/- together with interest on the compensation awarded to her and the rest of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be kept in FD for one year. The petitioners are directed to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the excess awarded amount of Rs.10,50,000/- within 30 days. The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. No compensation is awarded to the petitioner No.4 as he died during the pendency of the petition.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2017.

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Petitioners:

PW-1: Smt B.Rama Devi

PW-2: Sri Pasati Mahender Reddy

Witnesses examined on behalf of Respondents:

RW-1: Smt Kesavi Kumari

Exhibits marked on behalf of petitioners:

Ex. A1: is the certified copy of FIR in Cr.No. 444/2014 of PS

Hayathnagar.

EX.A2: is the certified copy of the charge sheet

EX.A3: is the certified copy of crime details form with rough sketch

EX.A4: is the certified copy of MV Inspector

EX.A5: is the certified copy of Postmortem certificate

EX.A6: is the death certificate

EX.A7: is the family members certificate issued by Tahasildar

Chityala

EX.A8: is the secondary education certificate 13 EX.A9: is the ID card of the deceased

EX.A10: is the original driving license of the deceased

EX.A11: is the original pan card of the deceased

EX.A12: is the original pass port of the deceased

EX.A13: is the original ROR proceedings dt 03.08.1992

EX.A14: is the purchase voucher in the name of the deceased dt 07.06.2014

EX.A15: is the income tax returns of the deceased

EX.A16: is the original partnership deed

EX.A17: is the Firm registration form dt 12.09.2012

EX.A18: is the statement of bank account of the firm

EX.A19: is the Aadhar Card of the deceased

EX.A20: is the set of 31 payments receipts pertaining to the education of the petitioners 2 & 3

EX.A21: is the 3 fee payment receipts in the name of the deceased

EX.A22 & A23: are the Original ID cards of petitioners 2 & 3

Exhibits Marked on behalf of the Respondents :-

EX.R1: is the copy of police

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE ,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

O.P.No.931 / 20091

IN THE COURT OF X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC) RANGA REDDY DISTRICT : AT L B NAGAR : HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : SMT. D. LAKSHMI KAMESWARI, B.Sc., B.L.,

X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Tuesday, the Twenty First day of May,

Two Thousand Thirteen

O.P.No.931 / 2009

01.Vaddi Srinivas... Petitioner

Vs

01.Geological Survey of India,

02.The Deputy Director General of GSI... Respondents

*****

This O.P coming on 21-05-2013 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.Venkateshwarlu, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Sri.K.Jaya Raj, Advocate for Respondents and after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, this court delivered the following:

::O R D E R::

01.This petition is filed by the petitioner U/Sec 166 of Motor

Vehicle Act, 1988 and rules 475 / 1B of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle

Rule 1989 R/W section 140 (C) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11-08-2008 at 1730 hours near Koheda 'X' Roads, Hayathnagar Mandal, RR District.

02.The petitioner was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and was working as a Purchase Officer at M/s.Sanghi Polymers

Pvt., Ltd., and was earning Rs.9,000/- and odd per month and was contributing the entire amount for the welfare of his family and that he was hale and healthy before the accident, while so on 11-08-2008 at 1730 hours when the petitioner was riding his TVS Victor Motor Cycle

O.P.No.931 / 20092 bearing No.AP 29B 6858 from Secunderabad to Sanghinagar and when he reached Koheda X Roads the opposite coming Jeep bearing No.AHO 5668 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed hit the two wheeler of the petitioner, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to Sai

Chaitanya Hospital, Hayathnagar and from there to Anurag Orthopedic

Multi Specialty Hospital, Chaitanyapuri where he was admitted and was treated for 13 days as an inpatient and he has undergone surgery and that due to the non-union of the fractured bones he was again admitted in Sai Sanjeevini Hospital, Dilsuknagar where he has under gone surgery to right leg and was fixed with nail to his right leg.

03.The above said accident was registered as a case in

Cr.No.384 of 2008 of P.S.Hayathnagar against the driver of Jeep belongs to R1 and R2 i.e., Geological Survey of India, the driver in the

Jeep is the employee of the respondent and claim has been made against the respondents for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

04.R1 and 2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition and sought for the strict proof of the age and income particulars of the petitioner and also the nature of the injuries sustained by him and the treatment obtained by him and contends that the official driver of the vehicle is a very disciplined official and that the accident might not have been occurred due to rash and negligent conduct of the driver of the Jeep and therefore the respondents seeks for the dismissal of the petition.

05.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed.

01. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of driver of the Jeep bearing No.AHO

5668 ?

O.P.No.931 / 20093

or

Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the TVS Victor Motor Cycle bearing

No.AP 29B 6858 ?

or

Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the TVS Victor Motor Cycle bearing

No.AP 29B 6858 ?

02. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation ?

If so at what (Quantum) and from which of the

respondents ?

03. To what relief ?

06.During the course of enquiry PW1 to 3 were examined,

Ex.A1 to A9 were marked. RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked.

07.On hearing of arguments, the matter was posted for orders.

08.PW1 is the injured and he deposed to the contents of the petition that while he was riding the vehicle, the driver who is an employee of Geological Survey of India drove the Official Jeep in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his two wheeler in the opposite direction, as a result, he sustained fractures of both the bones of his right leg. In addition to the above evidence, he exhibited Ex.A1,

A2 and A4 i.e., certified copies of the FIR, the Charge Sheet, and the

Judgment in CC 737 of 2008 passed by VII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hayathnagar against the driver of the respondents. The oral evidence of PW1 is supported by the above documents and is sufficient to believe that the conduct of the driver of the Jeep was rash and negligent while driving the vehicle. Ex.A4 clearly shows that the driver of the respondent was convicted and sentenced on his plea of admission. Therefore there is no doubt to believe the rash and

O.P.No.931 / 20094 negligent conduct of the driver of the respondent caused the accident which resulted in sustaining injuries to the petitioner.

09.The defence of the respondents is that the driver has taken the jeep out of the garage without gate pass, therefore, the employer is not liable to pay the compensation. It is not disputed that the vehicle that was involved in the accident belonging to GSI and driver is an employee under it. The respondents also admitted the occurrence of the accident in the counter. RW1 who is the official of the respondents has filed the statement said to have been made by its driver before the Fact Finding Committee. Evidently the petitioner was not issued any notice of such enquiry and the said statement said to have been issued by the driver was not before PW1. Therefore, it does not bind him. Therefore, I hold that the respondent who is the employer of the driver of the Jeep at the time of the accident is vicariously liable to pay the compensation to the injured.

10.PW1 deposed that he earns Rs.9,000/- and odd per month and he also exhibited Ex.A7 Salary Certificate. Except that certificate

PW1 has not examined any official of the company, and no registers have been produced to believe that PW1 was paid such a salary by his employer. Therefore under the normal wage standards I consider the earning of PW1 at Rs.5,000/-.

11.PW2 and 3 are the Orthopedic Surgeons, who said to have conducted surgeries to the fractured bones. PW2 is Orthopedic

Surgeon of Anurag Hospital and he said that PW1 has sustained Grade

II Compound Injury and he has operated the petitioner on 04-08-2008 by fixing nail and he has discharged him on 23-08-2008. PW3 said that the earlier surgery that was undergone by PW1 to his fractured bones

O.P.No.931 / 20095 was not united and he extracted the broken nail, and re-fixed with nail and bone grafting was done. He also advised PW1 to take bed rest for a period of 5 to 6 months. Whereas the Salary certificate shows PW1 did not attend duty from 12-08-2008 to 18-01-2009 without salary.

Whereas the rest advised by PW3 is for 5 months from 9/09, except the certificate no evidence has been produced by PW1 to show that he was out of duty for the above said period. Anyhow for the injuries sustained by PW1, under the normal standards I deem it is reasonable to consider that he was on rest for a period of 3 months.

12.Basing on the above observations the compensation is calculated here under:

01.TRAVELING EXPENSES:

The accident occurred near Koheda 'X' Roads and immediately after the accident he was shifted to Sai Chaitanya Hospital,

Hayathnagar and from there to Anurag Orthopedic Multi Specialty

Hospital, Chaitanyapuri. He took further treatment at Sai Sanjeevini

Hospital, Dilsuknagar due to the non-union of the bones. I deem it reasonable to award an amount of Rs.3,000/- for meeting transportation expenses in the absence of production of any receipts and the same is awarded under this head.

02.EXTRA NOURISHMENT AND ATTENDANT CHARGES:

PW1 was aged about 38 years at the time of accident. Due to the fracture of both the bones of right leg, he might have restricted to bed for a considerable period and might have taken the assistance of an attendant for a long period. He also might have required extra nourishment for the unity of bones and for his general health.

Therefore, I deem it reasonable to award an amount of Rs.5,000/- and the same is awarded under this head.

O.P.No.931 / 20096

03.TREATMENT, MEDICINES AND OTHER EXPENSES:

Even though PW1 has stated that initial surgery was done at

Anurag Orthopedic Multi Specialty Hospital, Chaitanyapuri no inpatient bill was produced by him to believe the same. He filed a bill issued by

Sai Sanjeevini Hospital, Dilsuknagar for an amount of Rs.44,100/- payable by PW1, but there is no material before the court to believe that PW1 has paid the same, as PW1 has not filed the payment receipt.

In addition to the above bill he filed several purchase bills of medicines but there are no prescriptions for them. For all the above reasons I deem it reasonable to award an amount of Rs.30,000/- for meeting the medical expenses by PW1 for his surgery and the same is awarded under this head.

04.EXPENDITURE FOR FUTURE SURGERY

PW3 said that PW1 is required to under go another operation for the removal of the nail for that he require Rs.26,000/- towards expenditure and PW3 being an Orthopedic Expert there is no necessity for me to disbelieve his evidence. Therefore, I deem it reasonable to consider that PW1 required another operation to which an expenditure of Rs.26,000/- is required and the same is awarded under this head.

05.PAIN AND SUFFERANCE:

PW1 might have suffered severe pain and agony due to the grievous injuries sustained to his leg and it was not united even after first surgery, and he suffered severe pain for a period of one year and he has undergone another surgery after one year of the accident.

Therefore I deem it reasonable to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- under this head.

O.P.No.931 / 20097

06.LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE PERIOD OF TREATMENT:

As discussed by me in the previous paragraphs PW1 might not have gone for his work for a period of three months and he might have earned nothing during that period. Therefore, I deem it is reasonable to award an amount of Rs.15,000/- and the same is awarded.

07.COMPENSATION FOR THE FRACTURES:

PW1 sustained fracture of both bones of right leg. As seen from the evidence of PW2 and 3 the fractures are to his major bones and the legs are the load bearing organs and it takes considerable time for

PW1 to come to normal position because there will be persisting pain for a long time. Therefore, I deem it reasonable to award an amount of

Rs.25,000/- under this head and the same is awarded under this head.

08.LOSS OF COMFORT:

PW1 was aged about 38 years, and according to his evidence he is an employee in private concern. He is required to move around on two wheeler, due to the above injury he might have to suffer the feel of discomfort when he was riding the two wheeler. Therefore I deem it reasonable to award an amount of Rs.10,000/-.

In the result, the petition is partly allowed by awarding an amount of Rs.1,24,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty four thousand only) together with interest at 7 percent per annum from the date of petition till the deposit of the amount into the court. R1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation. The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw an amount of Rs.74,000/- (Rupees seventy four thousand only) together with

O.P.No.931 / 20098 interest and costs and the rest of Rs.50,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of two years. Advocate fee is Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the

Tuesday, the Twenty First day of May, Two Thousand Thirteen.

X Addl District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Petitioner/s:

P.W.1V. Srinivas

P.W.2Dr.P.Raju

P.W.3 Dr.S.Anjaiah

On behalf of the Respondent/s:

R.W.1Dr.A.S.Senthi Vadivel

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of the Petitioner/s:

Ex.A1Certified Copy of FIR

Ex.A2Certified Copy of Charge Sheet

Ex.A3Certified Copy of MLC

Ex.A4Certified Copy of Judgment

Ex.A5Original Discharge Card

Ex.A6Original Estimation Bill

Ex.A7Original Salary Certificate

Ex.A8Bunch of Medical Bill (Nos.63)

Ex.A9X-Rays films (Nos.5)

On behalf of the Respondent/s:

Ex.B1Authorization letter

Ex.B2Enquiry report

X Addl.District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District.

O.P.No.925 / 20081

IN THE COURT OF X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) RANGA

REDDY DISTRICT : AT L B NAGAR : HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : SMT. D. LAKSHMI KAMESWARI, B.Sc., B.L.,

X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Wednesday, the Fifth day of June,

Two Thousand Thirteen

M.V.O.P.No.925 / 2008

01.Ahmed, S/o. Md.Ali, Age:25 years, Occ: Electrical Poles work, R/o. Jodimetla, Ghatkesar,

RR District.... Petitioner

Vs

01.Anil Singh, S/o. Not known to petitioner, Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Car No.AP 10 AA 4535, R/o. Block 9/5, Kendriya Vihar, Opp: Bus Body, Mayurinagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad.

02.M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep.by its Authorized Signatory, 3rd Floor, above Mallik Motors, St.No.3, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad – 500029. Policy No.1801372311105597

Valid from 06-06-2007 to 05-06-2008.... Respondents

*****

This O.P coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.L.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the petitioner, and Respondent No.1 remained Exparte and Sri.G.Srinivasa Charyulu, Advocate for Respondent.2 and after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, this court delivered the following:

::O R D E R::

01.This petition is filed by the petitioner U/Sec 166 of Motor Vehicle

Act, 1988 and rules 475 / 1B of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rule 1989 R/W section 140 (C) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10-05-2008 at 07-45 PM near T. Junction Korremul.

02.The petitioner was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was earning Rs.6,000/-

O.P.No.925 / 20082 per month by working as a Electrical Pole Worker and was contributing the entire amount for the welfare of the family, while so, on 10-07-2008 at 07-45

PM when his friend Mr.Ravi Kumar was sitting as a pillion rider and the petitioner Mr.Ahemd while riding the motor cycle bearing No. AP 29 T 8497 from Narapally to Jedimetla and when they reached T.Junction at Korremul, a

Santro Car bearing No.AP 10 AA 4535 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from Warangal side and dashed against the two wheeler which the petitioner was riding and as a result they both fell down and sustained injuries and immediately they were shifted to Kamineni

Hospitals at LB Nagar for treatment. The above accident was registered as a case in Cr.No.126 of 2008 of P.S. Ghatkesar U/Sec 337 IPC against the driver of the offending car.

03.Due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner his income was drastically fallen down and the first respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle and the second respondent being its insurer, the claim for compensation for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is claimed against both.

04.The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent filed counter denying the averments of the petition and seeks for the strict proofs of the manner of the accident, and the injuries sustained by the petitioner, and also sought for the strict proof of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of R1. The respondent also sought for the confirmation of the policy pertaining to offending vehicle and sought for the dismissal of the petition.

05.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed.

01. Whether the accident occurred on 10-05-2008 at about 07:45

PM at T.Junction, Korremula causing injuries to the petitioner

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car

O.P.No.925 / 20083 bearing No.AP 10 AA 4535 ?

02. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so, to what amount and from whom ?

03. To what relief ?

06.During the course of trial PW1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to

A7 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced for the respondents.

07.On hearing of arguments the matter has been posted for Orders.

POINT:

08.PW1 deposed to the contents of the petition that on the date of accident when he was riding the motor cycle and when his friend Mr.Ravi

Kumar who is the injured in O.P.No.926 of 2008 was sitting as a pillion rider, the Santro Car bearing No.AP 10 AA 4535 hit against the two wheeler. In addition to the oral evidence he also exhibited Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 which are the certified copies of the FIR and the Charge sheet which shows that the driver of the first respondent was charge sheeted. Except seeking strict proof of each and every averment of the petition, the respondent did not come forward with any evidence to challenge the evidence of PW1.

Therefore, the the evidence of PW1 is sufficient to believe the rash and negligent conduct of driver of R1 which caused the accident.

09.Even though the second respondent has taken a plea seeking strict proof of the policy, it does not lead any negative evidence regarding the non-issuance of the policy to the vehicle of R1. During the course of cross examination PW1 also, he was not suggested regarding the non- existence of the policy to the vehicle of R1. Therefore, it is deemed that R2 has issued a policy in favour of the vehicle of R1 and it was subsisting as on the date of accident. Therefore, R1 and R2 are jointly and severally liable to

O.P.No.925 / 20084 pay the compensation.

10.PW1 was aged about 25 years at the time of accident. Even though the oral evidence of PW1 shows that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as an Electrical Pole Worker in “Mansani Constructions”, there is no evidence to that effect. Therefore, under the normal wage standards as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, the monthly earning of PW1 is considered at Rs.4,500/-.

11.PW2 is the who the Resident Medical Officer of Kamineni

Hospitals and he deposed basing on the medical record of PW1. He said that

PW1 was admitted in the casualty of the hospital on 10-05-2008 at 0845 PM with alleged history of RTA and he had one episode of seizure and bleeding from the right ear and nose and sustained fracture of Maxila with split in the palate and fracture in the Mandible. He also said that he was done

Tracheostomy to the fractures and those were fixed with internal wiring on 13-05-2008 and was discharged on 23-05-2008. His evidence shows that the

Dental and Maxillo Facial Surgeon Dr.A.P.Mohan, who was with Kameneni

Hospitals at that time is not with the hospital and left the institution.

12.The evidence of PW2 is not shuttered during the course of cross examination. He also approved the expenditure said to have been sustained by him under Ex.A6 and identified Ex.A3, A4, A6, A7 as the MLC history, discharge summary, bunch of investigations and X-Rays. The oral evidence of PW2 coupled with the above documents is sufficient to believe that PW1 has sustained fractures to the facial bones and surgery was conducted in

Kamineni Hospital. There is no reason for me to disbelieve the evidence of

PW2 as far as the treatment and the expenditure incurred by PW1.

O.P.No.925 / 20085

13.Basing on the the above observation the compensation is calculated here under:

01.TRAVELING EXPENSES:

14.PW1 said to have been treated at Kamineni Hospital. Therefore I deem that it is reasonable to award an amount of Rs.2,000/- to meet the travelling expenses from the accident spot to the hospital and from the hospital to his house and also for the reviews and the same is awarded under this head.

02.DAMAGES FOR CLOTHING:

15.An amount of Rs.1,000/- is awarded under this head.

03.EXTRA NOURISHMENT AND ATTENDENT CHARGES:

16.PW1 was hospitalized for a period of 14 days with fractures to the facial bones. Due to the injuries sustained by him, he might have depended upon an attendant for a considerable period. He also might have needed extra nourishment for the unity of the fractured bones and also for picking up his general health. Therefore, I deem that it is reasonable to award

Rs.6,000/- under this head and the same is awarded.

04.TREATMENT, MEDICINES AND INCIDENTAL EXPENDITURE:

17.In Ex.A6 a bunch of medical bills worth about Rs.1,59,141/- pertaining to his inpatient treatment is a part of expenditure. In addition to that he also incurred expenditure for the treatment in the casualty for an amount of nearly Rs.15,000/-. The aggregate amount under Ex.A6 bills is

Rs.1,74,148/-. In addition to the above expenditure he also might have incurred incidental charges for which he may not be able to account for.

Therefore, in order to meet the expenditure for the treatment including of incidental charges I deem that it is reasonable to award Rs.1,75,000/- under this head and the same is awarded.

O.P.No.925 / 20086

05.PAIN AND SUFFERANCE:

18.Due to the accident the petitioner might have suffered severe shock, pain and mental agony as he sustained head injury for that I deem that it is reasonable to award Rs.15,000/- under this head and the same is awarded.

06.LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT PERIOD:

19.PW1 was treated as an inpatient in Kamineni Hospital for a period of nearly 14 days. He has undergone Maxillo Facial Surgery to the Maxilla and Mandible and there is a split in the palate. Due to the said injuries he might have taken rest atleast for a period of more than 2 months. During this period he might not have resumed his work and lost his income.

Therefore, I deem it reasonable to award an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards loss of income for a period of 2 months and the same is awarded under this head.

06.COMPENSATION FOR THE INJURIES:

20.Ex.A3 and A4 which are MLC history and the discharge summary shows that he sustained fractures to the Mandible and Maxilla and there is a split in the palate all these injuries are grievous in nature. In view of the location of the injuries and the gravity of such injuries, I deem that it is reasonable to award Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by PW1.

21.Aggregately the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.2,33,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty three thousand only) towards compensation.

22.In the result, the petition is allowed in part by awarding an amount of Rs.2,33,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty three thousand only) with an interest of 7 % from the date of petition till the date of recovery and the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw Rs.1,33,000/- (Rupees One Lakh thirty

O.P.No.925 / 20087 three thousand only) together with interest and the rest of the amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit for a period of 2 years. Advocate fee is Rs.2,000/-.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the Wednesday, the Fifth

day of June, Two Thousand Thirteen.

X Addl District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Petitioner:

P.W.1Ahmed Ali

P.W.2Dr.K.Paul Wilson

On behalf of the Respondents: Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of the Petitioner:

Ex.A1Certified Copy of FIR

Ex.A2Certified Copy of Charge Sheet

Ex.A3Certified Copy of MLC issued by Kamineni Hospital

Ex.A4Discharge Summary

Ex.A5Bunch of Medical Bills

Ex.A6Investigations – 20

Ex.A7X-Rays – 4

On behalf of the Defence: Nil

X Addl District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District.

O.P.No.925 / 20088

IN THE COURT OF X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) RANGA

REDDY DISTRICT : AT L B NAGAR : HYDERABAD.

N O T I C E

Please take notice that the Judgment in O.P.No.925 of 2008 be

pronounced on this day i.e., 05-06-2013.

X Addl District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District.

To

01.Sri.L.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the petitioner

02. Sri.G.Srinivasa Charyulu, Advocate for Respondents

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE;

R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR, HYDERABAD

PRESENT: SMT.D.LAKSHMI KAMESWARI,

XIII ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017.

O.S.NO. 81 of 2016

Between:-

1. Dr. K.Venkat Rao S/o Mr. Subbarayudu, Aged 63 years, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No. 505, Block F2, Indu Aranya Pallavi Thattiannaram, Hyderabad-500068.

2. Mrs. K.Aruna Devi W/o Mr. K.Venkat Rao, Aged 63 years, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No. 505, Block F2, Indu Aranya Pallavi Thattiannaram, Hyderabad-500068.

... Plaintiff.

AND

1. Mrs. Yarlagadda Vasundhara W/o Late Y.Anjaneyulu, 55 yers, R/o Flat No. 106, 1st Floor “Shanthi Block” Medha Rejoice, Attapur, Hyderabad- 500048.

2. Mr. Yarlagadda Vamsi Krishna S/o Late Y.Anjaneyulu, 30 years, R/o Flat No. 106, 1st Floor “Shanthi Block” Medha Rejoice, Attapur, Hyderabad- 500048.

3. Mr. Yarlagadda Manoj Krishna S/o Late Y.Anjaneyulu, 23 years, R/o Flat No. 106, 1st Floor “Shanthi Block” Medha Rejoice, Attapur, Hyderabad- 500048. ….Defendants.

Suit filed Under Section 26, Under Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A.Pavan Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and

Defendants were set exparte and after considering the material on record, this court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed U/s. 26 U/ Order 7, Rule 1 of CP.C, for the recovery of amount of Rs. 29,94,000/- together with future interest at 18% per annum, from the date of suit till the date of realization.

The plaint averments in brief are that the defendants are 2.

the wife and sons of Late Dr.Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu who is the brother in law of the son in law of the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s family and family of the Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu are well known to each other and

Late Dr. Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu worked as Professor in Acharya N G.

Ranga Agricultural university, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad and

Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu expired on 16.01.2016. In view of the relationship and acquaintance with Late Dr. Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu, at his request, the plaintiff provided hand loan from time to time to Late

Dr. Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu by transferring the amounts from his account in HDFC Bank to the account of Late Dr. Yarlagadda

Anjaneyulu on different dates and the different amounts sent to the account of Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu was totaling an amount of Rs.

30,00,000/- prior to 20.03.2014 and out of the said loan a part of amount, was repaid by Late Dr. Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu from his account to the account of the plaintiff, while so on 20.03.2014, Late

Dr. Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu, approached the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs.

5 lakhs, on receipt of that amount, executed a promissory note for an aggregate amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- by promising to repay the entire amount, with interest @ 18 % per annum and during his life time Late 3

Dr. Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu paid an amount of Rs. 19,48,500/-, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 29,94,000/-.

3.When the summons were tendered to the defendants, those were served on defendants 1 to 3, but they all failed to appear before the court and they were made exparte.

The plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and Exs. A1 to 4.

A10 are marked. On hearing the counsel for the plaintiff, the matter has been reserved for judgment.

5.Points for consideration are:

i). Whether the plaintiff is able to satisfy the court regarding the suit transaction?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for recovery of suit claim, if so from whom?

6. The plaintiff himself was examined as Pw.1. He filed his chief affidavit which is the replica to the plaint. The chief affidavit of

Pw-1 shows that he totally lent an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- to Late

Dr. Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu during his life time and he repaid an amount of Rs. 19,48,500/- by depositing the same on different dates in the account of the plaintiff and he is still due of the amount under the suit claim. PW-1 says that the defendants 1 to 3, who are the legal heirs of Late Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu, are liable to pay the suit claim of Rs. 29,94,000/-.

7.The case of the plaintiff through Pw-1 is that due to the acquaintance with the family of the Late Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu, he has lent an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- to him, on different dates as 4 mentioned in the plaint by making electronic transfer through his bank account, to that of Late Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu. EXs. A2 to A7 are the bank statements of the plaintiff and his wife. The payments said to have been made by the plaintiff to the account of Late

Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu is corroborated with EXs.A2 to A7. The verification of the postings in EX.A2 to A7 corroborates the amounts said to have been paid by the plaintiff to Late Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu and the repayments made by the said Late Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu to the plaintiff. The defendants are the wife and sons of Late Yarlagadda

Anjaneyulu. On his behalf and on behalf of the defendants 1 & 3, the 2nd defendant received summons sent by this court on 21.02.2016 and they did not appear before the court as required by this court on 10.03.2016. The court felt the service on defendants 1 to 3 as sufficient and were set exparte on 02.06.2016. Even though the defendants have got bound on duty to attend before the court to put forth their defence, they did not come forward to deny the suit claim.

Therefore by way of oral evidence of PW-1 and by exhibiting EX.A1, the suit promissory note, the plaintiff could satisfy the court that Late

Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu had money transaction with the plaintiff / Pw-1 and he could not discharge it during his life time. EX.A8 is the certified copy of the property which is a flat held in the name of Late

Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu and EX.A9 is the encumbrance certificate, which shows that the said Late Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu did not make any transfer of the property. Therefore even though the defendants are not personally liable to discharge the debt owed by Late 5

Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu, they are liable to discharge the debt from out of his estate which is lying in their hands.

7.Admittedly the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- is not paid by the plaintiffs to Late Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu at once. The statements marked as EX.A2 to A7 reflects the the payments and repayments made periodically. Even according to the evidence of Pw-1, Late

Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu has executed EX.A1 promissory note on 20.03.2014 when he made the last payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-. There is no evidence before the court about the terms of interest payable on the amounts those were already advanced up to that date. The plaint does not disclose how the plaintiff has calculated the suit claim.

Therefore on perusal of the oral and documentary evidenced placed by the plaintiff/ Pw-1 the amount has been calculated hereunder.

8.According to the evidence of plaintiff /Pw-1, as on 20.03.2014 ie the date of EX.A1 promissory note, the plaintiff / Pw-1 has already paid Rs. 30,00,000/- and on receipt of another amount of

Rs. 5,00,000/-, the defendant has executed EX.A1 promissory note. It means that as on 20.03.2014 the outstanding liability of the defendant towards the plaintiff/ Pw-1 is Rs. 30,00,000/- and by that date the defendant has paid Rs. 4,48,500/-. Therefore the balance payable as on the date was Rs. 25,51,500/- and with the amount of Rs.

5,00,000/- said to have been paid by the plaintiff / Pw-1 to the defendant, it aggregately amounts to Rs. 30,51,500/-. From that date till the filing of the suit on 27.01.2016, the period is 678 days. The agreed rate of interest as per EX.A1 from that date till the filing of the 6 suit @ 18% per annum amounts to Rs. 10,20,287/- and the aggregate amount together with principal and interest arrives to Rs. 40,71,787/- and out of that amount Late Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu paid Rs.

15,00,000/- even according to the admission of the plaintiff / Pw-1 from 20.03.2014 to 12.10.2015 and when the amounts paid by late

Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu are given credit, the balance payable by him is

Rs. 25,71,787/-. Therefore I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree to recover an amount of Rs. 25,71,787/-.

9. In the result, suit is decreed for Rs. 25,71,787/- together with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the above amount from the date of suit till the date of recovery and with cost. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the estate, if any left by late

Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu.

Typed to my dictation, corrected by me in Open court, on this the 18 th day of March, 2017.

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiffs:

PW1: Dr. K.Venkat Rao

Exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: is the demand promissory note dt 20.03.2014 executed by late Late Dr. Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu

EX.A2: is the statement of account pertaining to Pw-1 account in HDFC Bank, Tanuku branch from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 7

EX.A3: is the Statement of account pertaining to Pw-1 account in HDHF Bank, Tanuku branch from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013

EX.A4: is the Statement of account pertaining to Pw-1 account in HDHF Bank, Tanuku branch from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013

EX.A5: is the Statement of account pertaining to Pw-1 account in HDHF Bank, Tanuku branch from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013

EX.A6: is the loan account with HDFC Bank, Tanuku branch from 01.04.2012 to 31.12.2013

EX.A7: is the loan account of 2nd plaintiff with HDFC Bank, Tanuku branch from 01.04.2012 to 31.12.2013

EX.A8: is the registration extract bearing document No. 7871/04 dt 01.10.2004 in the name of the Yarlagadda Anjaneyulu

EX.A9: is the Encumbrance Certificate

EX.A10: is the Market value certificate

Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant:

Exparte

Exhibits Marked on behalf of the Defendant:

Exparte.

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.