Sri M.suvarna Raju

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(VI-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT), VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Sri Moka Suvarna Raju

VI Additional District Judge

Thursday, the 30 th day of November, 2023

M.V.O.P No.491 of 2021

Between:

Manepalli Rambabu, S/o. Prakashrao, Hindu, aged 43 years, residing at D.No. 23-7-1, Ward No.24, Dudavari Veedhi, Vinayaka Temple, Visakhapatnam, Pin No.530001. Aadhar No.8754 5872 5783.

... Petitioner

And

1. Sri Jalumuri Chitti Babu, S/o Late Chandra Shekar, Hindu, aged 40 years, residing at Appalanarasayya Colony, Vepagunta, besides Gas Godown, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam, Native of Anandapuram Village, K.Kotapadu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-31 TD-0684.

2. Sri Gajula Narasinga Rao, S/o Gajula Late Apparao, Hindu, age not known to the petitioner, but major, residing at D.No.58-11-75/1, Old Karasa, Visakhapatnam, Pin No.530009 (Owner of the Lorry bearing registration No.AP31 TD0684).

3. United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Manager, Regional Office, Pavan Enclave, D.No.30-15-1, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam-20. Bearing Policy No.5303043120P100295488, valid from 04.04.2020 to 03.04.2021. … Respondents

This Petition was coming on 11.10.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Sasibhushana Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners, the Respondent No.2 since remained exparte, and in the presence of Sri M.A.Raju, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Sri S.S.Mohana Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.3, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, r/w Rule 455 of the A.P Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation for the death of his wife.

2

2. The brief averments of the Petition are that the Petitioner along with his wife viz., Manepalli Laxmi went to Srinivasa Clinic for treatment about her infertility on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-31 CP- 9568; that after the checkup, while they were returning from Narasimha

Nagar towards Maharani Parlour of Akkayyapalem and while he was taking right turn at Akkayyapalem Junction, on the NH-16 Road, the Driver of the

Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-31 TD-0684 drove the same in high speed without blowing horn, which was proceeding from NAD Junction towards

Akkayyapalem dashed against the motorcycle, due to which, the wife of the

Petitioner had fallen on the road; that the Lorry dragged her to some distance; that she had received severe bleeding injuries on her right shoulder, right leg, hip; that she was shifted to the NRI Hospital,

Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam for treatment; that while undergoing treatment, she succumbed to the injuries on the same day. It is further pleaded that about the accident, the S.H.O., IV Town Police Station,

Visakhapatnam had registered an FIR bearing No.466/2020 under Sections 304-A and 337 of the IPC. It is further pleaded that the Petitioner is the only legal-heir to his wife; that his wife had worked as labourer and was doing

Milk business and earning Rs.9,000/- + Rs.9,000/- total Rs.18,000/- per month; that the Respondent No.1, is the Driver of the Lorry; that the

Respondent No.2, is the owner and the Respondent No.3, is the Insurance

Company and that they are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

3.The Respondent No.1, Driver and the Respondent No.3, Insurance

Company have contested the Petition while the owner i.e., the Respondent

No.2, remained exparte.

3

4.The Respondent No.1, has pleaded that the Station House Officer, IV

Town Police Station had implicated him in Cr.No.466/2020; that he was neither rash nor negligent; that he is having valid and effective Driving

Licence at the time of the accident; that compensation, if any, awarded shall be against the other Respondents. Thus, he submitted to dismiss the petition against him.

5.The plea of the Respondent No.3, is that the claim of the petitioner is highly exaggerate and out of proportion; that the petitioner is put to strict proof the manner in which the accident was occurred; that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation; that the interest, if any, awarded shall be restricted to 6% per annum; that the Insurance Company seeks protection under Sections 146, 147, 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5.On the strength of the pleadings the following issues were settled:

1. Whether on 27.08.2020 the Driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-31 TD-0684 drove the same rashly violating the traffic rules while proceeding from NAD Junction towards Akkayyapalem dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner Manepalli Rambabu, bearing Registration No.AP-31 CP-9568 resulting into causing grievous injuries to his wife Lakshmi who succumbed to the injuries?

2.Whether the Insurance Company with which the motorcycle of the petitioner bearing Registration No.AP-31 CP-9568 was insured is a necessary party, if so, non impleadment of the same is fatal to the petitioner?

3. Whether the Driver of the Lorry had no valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of the accident, if not, the owner had negligently handed over the vehicle to him to drive on the road?

4.Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents?

5.To what relief?

6.On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself had deposed evidence as P.W1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. He examined one Darla 4

Veerabhadra Rao, who said to be a witness to the accident as P.W2. After closing the evidence of the petitioner, since there was no representation on behalf of the Respondent No.1, his evidence was closed. The Respondent

No.3, Insurance Company did not examine any witnesses, but got marked a copy of the Insurance Policy by consent as Ex.B1.

7.Thereafter, heard the arguments of both the Counsel. The learned

Counsel for the Claim Petitioner has submitted Written Arguments. Now, I proceed to answer the Issues.

8. I ssue No.1: (8.1). The Claim petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, had deposed that on 27.08.2020 while he was returning after the check up of his wife in Srinivasa Clinic, on their motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-31 CP-9568, a Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-31 TD- 0684, which was proceeding from NAD Junction towards Akkayyapalem, without blowing horn dashed against their motorcycle and dragged his wife on the Road to some distance, due to which, she received bleeding injuries on the right Shoulder, right Leg, Hip; that she was shifted to the NRI

Hospital, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam and there she succumbed to the injuries; that the IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam had registered an

FIR bearing No.466/2020 under Sections 304 and 337 of the IPC. The petitioner, who being the rider of the motorcycle is as well an injured and an eyewitness to the accident. On behalf of the Insurance Company, it was suggested to him that he without giving signal took right turn at

Akkayyapalem Signal Junction and that due to his negligence only, the accident was occurred.

5 (8.2). The other witness Mr. Darla Veerabhadra Rao @ Bhadra (PW2), had deposed that he was present at the place of the accident and witnessed the accident; that in the accident, the wife of the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries; that she was shifted to the NRI Hospital, where she succumbed to the injuries. During the cross-examination, he deposed that he is not related to the petitioner and that he happened to witness the accident while he was crossing the road on foot at Akkayyapalem to board an Auto. He further deposed that the Police have recorded his statement.

From the cross-examination, it is found that the Insurance Company has not denied the accident, but disputed the manner of the accident. However, the petitioner by examining himself as an eyewitness and by getting the attested copies of the FIR, Postmortem Examination Report, Inquest Report,

Accident report, Charge Sheet and the original Death Certificate of the deceased (Exs.A1 to A6) could prove that the accident was occurred due to rash driving of the Driver of the lorry (R1). There is no substance in the suggestion that the accident was caused because of the negligent riding of the petitioner. Thus, I hold that the accident was occurred due to the rash driving of the Driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-31 TD-0684.

9. I ssue No.2: (9.1). The Insurance Company, though had taken the plea that the Insurance Company of the motorcycle of the petitioner is a necessary party, did not put any suggestion to the P.W1. Since it is proved that the accident was occurred due to hit by the Lorry through oral and documentary evidence, to decide the claim the Insurance Company of the motorcycle of the Petitioner is not a necessary party. However, it is elicited in the cross-examination that the motorcycle of the deceased was not covered with insurance. It is a violation on the part of the petitioner under 6 the Motor Vehicles Act and it would be dealt with otherwise, which will not come in the way of this petition. Thus, the Issue is answered.

10. I ssue No.3: (10.1). The Insurance Company had taken the plea that the Driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of the accident. The plea of the Driver was that he was having valid and effective Driving Licence. In the Accident Report (Ex.A4), the Motor Vehicles Inspector had mentioned the particulars of the Diving

Licence as under: “8635 – C2 -1999, LA Visakhapatnam, Transport

Vehicle, valid up to 10.10.2020”. The Insurance Company did not give any suggestion to the P.W1 or adduce evidence to prove their plea that the

Driver had no valid and effective Driving Licence and that the Driving

Licence as referred in the Accident Report (Ex.A4) does not belong to the

Respondent No.1. Thus, I hold that the Driver was holding valid and effective

Driving Licence as on the date of the accident. Thus this issue is answered.

11. I ssue No.4: (11.1). The claim of the petitioner is that his wife was aged “38 years” as on the date of the accident; that she was doing manual labour as well as milk business and earning Rs.9,000/- + Rs.9,000/- per month and that he is the dependant. To show the age of the deceased, the petitioner did not file any documents. The Insurance Company did not dispute the age of the deceased as claimed by the petitioner. No suggestion was put to the P.W1 during the cross-examination as to the age of the deceased. Now, I look into the documents marked in evidence i.e., FIR which was registered before the death of the wife of the Petitioner. After the death of the wife of the Petitioner, the Section of law was altered to 304-A and 337 of the IPC. In the Report, the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 40 years and the age of his wife viz., Lakshmi was mentioned as “35 years”. In 7 the Inquest Report, Postmortem Examination Report, as well in the Death

Certificate the age of the deceased was shown as “38 years”. Hence, the age of the deceased is to be considered 38 years. Thus, it is the basis to calculate the compensation to be paid to the petitioner.

(11.2). About the income of the deceased, the Petitioner, except his oral evidence did not produce any documentary evidence. He admitted in the cross-examination that there is no Official Certificate with him that the monthly income of his wife as Milk Vendor as well as coolie works @

Rs.18,000/- per month. To do milk business in large scale Licence from the

Local Authority is required. The Petitioner since did not produce any such

Certificate, his mere version will not be sufficient to accept that she was doing milk business and earning Rs.9,000/- per month.

(11.3).As there is no proof with regard to the income, this Court relied upon a decision reported in 2019 ACJ 255 Bombay High Court

(Aurangabad Bench) held in the case of Papita and another Vs.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, in which it was held that income of a person to be taken as a minimum of Rs.6,000/- per month. Even if daily wages of a person is considered as Rs.300/- per day for one month it will come to Rs.9,000/- (Rs.300/- x 30 days). Therefore, the earnings of the deceased is considered to be Rs.9,000/- per month. By taking into consideration of the above income, the annual income of the deceased would arrive @ Rs.1,08,000/- (Rs.9,000/- x 12). Therefore, at the relevant time of the accident the annual income of the deceased can be considered

Rs.1,08,000/-.

8 (11.4). The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects as per the judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme

Court in a case of Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport corporation

[2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)] and also in the subsequent decisions, the income under future prospects has become an integral part of the Award under Motor vehicles Act. In the instant Case, considering the age of the deceased as 38 years and also keeping in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claimant shall be entitled to 40% addition to the income towards future prospects. Therefore, if 40% future prospects is added, then, it comes to

Rs.1,51,200/- (Rs.1,08,000/- X 40% = Rs.43,200/-). Therefore, the total income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.1,51,200/- per annum.

(11.5). Coming to deductions towards personal and living expenses, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also gave guidelines in the above

Judgment that deduction should be at ½ of her income as the deceased was not having any children and the dependent is her husband. Hence the relevant deduction should be made at ½ towards personal and living expenses. If such deduction is made at ½ in this case, it comes to

Rs.75,600/- (Rs.1,51,200/- (-) 50%). Hence, the contribution of the deceased to her family would have been Rs.75,600/- per annum. As the deceased was aged 38 years, the multiplier applicable is ‘15’. The total loss of dependency will be Rs.11,34,000/- (Rs.75,600/- X 15). As per the judgment in Pranay Sethi Vs. National Insurance Corporation Limited reported in 2017 ACJ, 2700 SC, some other amounts under Conventional

Heads are to be added to the above amount towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium i.e., Rs.15,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/-

Accordingly, the Petitioners are entitled to compensation as below:

9

1. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000-00

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

3. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000-00

4. Compensation along with future Rs. 11,34,000-00 earnings Total Rs. 12,04,000-00

In total a sum of Rs.12,04,000-00/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs, Four Thousand only).

12. Issue No.3: As a result, this Petition is allowed with Costs, awarding a compensation of Rs.12,04,000-00/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs

Four Thousand only) to the Petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the Claim Petition i.e., 11.01.2021 till the date of deposit.

The Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner and are directed to deposit the above said amount into Court within three months from the date of this Award. On such deposit, apportionment would be as follows:

S. Names of Relation- Amount Amount Amount

No. the ship with allotted permitted to to be

Parties the be kept in deceased withdrawn Fixed Deposit

01. ManepalliHusband Rs.12,04,000/- Rs.8,04,000/-Rs.4,00,0 (Rupees Twelve (Rupees Eight 00/- Rambabu, Lakhs Four Lakhs and Four (Rupees Thousand only) Four lakhs Thousand only) + + Accrued only) Accrued Interest For two Interest . and Total costs. years

The Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only).

Dictated to the Stenographer, Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me open Court on this the 30th day of November, 2023

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

VI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondents: - None -

PW1: Manepalli Rambabu. PW2: Darla Veerabhadra Rao @ Bhadra.

Documents marked

On behalf of Petitioners:

Ex.A1: An Attested Copy of the FIR bearing No.466/2020 dated 27.08.2020 of IV Town Police Station for the offence under Sections 337 & 338 of the IPC.

Ex.A2: An Attested Copy of the PME Certificate of Manepalli Lakshmi issued by the K.G.H dated 28.08.2020.

Ex.A3: An Attested Copy of the Inquest Report of Manepalli Lakshmi dated 28.08.2020.

Ex.A4: An Attested Copy of the Accident Report issued by the M.V.Inspector

dated 29.08.2020.

Ex.A5: An Attested Copy of the Charge Sheet in FIR No.466/2020 for the offence under Sections 304-A of the IPC.

Ex.A6: Original Death Certificate of Manepalli Lakshmni dated 21.10.2020. Ex.A7: An Attested Copy of the Insurance Policy bearing No.1503043120P100295488 issued on 04.04.2020.

Ex.A8: An Attested Copy of the Driving Licence of J.Chitti Babu.

Ex.A9: An Attested Copy of the Certificate of Registration of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP31 TD0684, dt.10.09.2012.

Ex.A10: An Attested Copy of the Certificate of Goods Carriage Permit bearing No.AP031/6796/PPC/2017 of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP31 TD0684 dated 15.07.2019.

Ex.A11: An Attested Copy of the Certificate of Fitness bearing No.FCY0017065/2019/AP031 of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP31 TD0684 dated 15.07.2019.

On behalf of the Respondent No.3:

Ex.B1: A Certified copy of the Insurance Policy.

VI ADJ-CUM-CHAIRMAN/MACT, VSP

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, (VI-ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT COURT), VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Sri Moka Suvarna Raju

VI Additional District Judge

Thursday, the 30 th day of November, 2023

M.V.O.P No. 508 of 2021

Between: Manepalli Rambabu, S/o. Prakashrao, Hindu, aged 43 years, residing at D.No.23-7-1, Ward No.24, Dudavari Veedhi, Vinayaka Temple, Visakhapatnam, Pin No.530001. Aadhar No.8754 5872 5783.

... Petitioner

And

1. Sri Jalumuri Chitti Babu, S/o Late Chandra Shekar, Hindu, aged 40 years, residing at Appalanarasayya Colony, Vepagunta, besides Gas Godown, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam, Native of Anandapuram Village, K.Kotapadu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-31 TD-0684.

2. Sri Gajula Narasinga Rao, S/o Gajula Late Apparao, Hindu, age not known to the petitioner, but major, residing at D.No.58-11-75/1, Old Karasa, Visakhapatnam, Pin No.530009 (Owner of the Lorry bearing registration No.AP31 TD0684).

3. United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Manager, Regional Office, Pavan Enclave, D.No.30-15-1, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam-20.Bearing Policy No.5303043120P100295488, valid from 04.04.2020 to 03.04.2021. … Respondents

This Petition was coming on 11.10.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Sasibhushana Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners, the Respondent No.2 since remained exparte, Sri M.A.Raju, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Sri S.S.Mohana Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act R/w Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident alleged to have occurred on 27.08.2020 at 06:30 hours.

2

2. The brief averments of the Petition are that the petitioner along with his wife viz., Manepalli Laxmi went to Srinivasa Clinic for treatment about her infertility on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-31 CP- 9568; that after the checkup while they were returning from Narasimha

Nagar towards Maharani Parlour of Akkayyapalem and while he was taking a right turn at Akkayyapalem Junction, on NH-16 Road and driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP-31 TD-0684 drove the same in high-speed without blowing horn, who were proceeding from NAD Junction towards

Akkayyapalem dashed against the motorcycle, due to which the petitioner fallen on the road and received injuries i.e.,

1) A abrasion 4x3 over on (L) Temporal region;

2) Abrasions on (L) and (R) hands and also he received grievous external and internal injuries all over his body.

It is further pleaded that he was shifted to the NRI Hospital,

Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam for treatment as an out patient; that he spent huge amount towards his treatment, extra-nourishment and medicines; that the S.H.O, IV Town Police Station had registered a case against the Respondent No.1. Thus, he submitted to award him a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally.

3.The Respondent No.1, Driver and the Respondent No.3, Insurance

Company have contested the petition while the owner i.e., Respondent No.2 remained exparte.

4.The Respondent No.1, has pleaded that the Station House Officer, IV

Town Police Station had implicated him in Cr.No.466/2020; that he was neither rash nor negligent; that he is having valid and effective Driving 3

Licence at the time of the accident; that if any compensation is awarded that shall be against the other Respondents. Hence, submitted to dismiss the petition against him.

5.The plea of the Respondent No.3 in their Counter is that the claim of the petitioner is highly exaggeration and out of proportion; that the petitioner is put to strict proof the manner in which the accident was occurred; that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation; that the interest if any awarded shall be restricted to 6% per annum; that the

Insurance Company seeks protection under Sections 146, 147, 149 of the

Motor Vehicles Act.

5.On the strength of the pleadings the following issues were settled:

1. Whether on 27.08.2020 the Driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-31 TD-0684 drove the same rashly violating the traffic rules while proceeding from NAD Junction towards Akkayyapalem dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner Manepalli Rambabu, bearing Registration No.AP-31 CP-9568 resulting into causing grievous injuries to the petitioner and his wife Lakshmi who succumbed to the injuries?

2.Whether the Insurance Company with which the motorcycle of the petitioner bearing Registration No.AP-31 CP-9568 was insured is a necessary party, if so, non impleadment of the same is fatal to the petitioner?

3. Whether the driver of the Lorry had no valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of the accident, if not the owner had negligently handed over the vehicle to him to drive on the road?

4.Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents?

5.To what relief?

6.On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself had deposed evidence as P.W1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. After closing the evidence of the petitioner, since there was no representation on behalf of the

Respondent No.1, his evidence was closed. The Respondent No.3, the 4

Insurance Company did not examine any witnesses, but got marked a copy of the Insurance Policy by consent as Ex.B1.

7.Thereafter, heard the arguments of both the Counsel. The learned

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted Written Arguments. Now, I proceeded to answer the Issues.

8. I ssue Nos.1 & 2: (8.1). The Claim Petitioner had deposed that on 27.08.2020 while he was returning after getting his wife check up in

Srinivasa Clinic, on their motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP-31 CP-9568, a Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-31 TD-0684, which was proceeding from

NAD Junction towards Akkayyapalem, without blowing horn dashed against their motorcycle, due to which, the petitioner fallen on the road; that he had received injuries i.e., 1) An adrasion of size 4x3 on (L) Temporal Region; 2)

Abrasions on (L) and (R) hands and also he received grievous external and internal injuries all over his body; that immediately he was shifted to NRI

Hospital, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam for treatment as an out patient; that he spent huge amount towards his treatment, extra-nourishment and medicines; that the S.H.O, IV Town Police Station had registered a case against the Respondent No.1.

(8.2). With regard to the accident, he got marked the attested true copies of the F.I.R No.466/2020 dated 27.08.2020 of IV Town Police Station,

Accident report dated 29.08.2020, Wound Certificate dated 30.10.2020, and the Charge Sheet filed before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam as Exs.A.1 to A4. It was suggested to the witness on behalf of the R.3, that the accident was occurred only due to his negligence and that the driver of the Lorry was neither rash nor negligent in driving the lorry.

5 (8.3). The FIR was registered on 27.08.2020 for the offence under

Sections 337 & 338 I.P.C. In the Accident report (Ex.A.3), the Assistant Motor

Vehicle Inspector had noted that he had inspected offending Lorry bearing

Registration No. AP 31 TD 0684 at IV Town Police Station and found no damages to the vehicle due to the accident and also conducted road test and observed that the efficiency of the Foot break and Parking break was in good condition. In Column Nos.16 and 17, he had mentioned the name of the owner-cum-driver as “G.Narasinga Rao, S/o Appa Rao” and the particulars of the Driving License as “8635-C2-1999 LA/Visakhapatnam

Transport Vehicles and its validity was up to 10.10.2020. He had opined that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle involved in the accident. The Respondent No.1, did not cross- examine the witness of the petitioner or adduce evidence on his behalf. The

Charge Sheet (Ex.A.4) shows that the Respondent No.1, was Charge Sheeted for the offence under Section 304-A of the I.P.C in Crime No.466/2020 of IV

Town Police Station. Thus, the evidence of the Petitioner (Injured) is corroborated by the contents in the F.I.R, Accident Report and the Charge

Sheet.

(8.4). The Insurance Company though challenged the claim of the injured and pleaded that the driver was not holding valid and effective

Driving License and that he had committed breach of the terms and conditions of the Policy, did not choose to examine their official or the

Regional Transport Authority. Thus, I hold that the accident occurred on 22.03.2016 was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Respondent

No.1; that the Driver was holding valid and effective Driving Licence; that 6 the offending vehicle was covered with Insurance Policy and it was in force as on the date of the accident.

9. Finding on issue No.3: My finding is that the Petitioner being the injured is entitled to a compensation of Rs.40,000/- payable by the

Respondents 1 to 3, jointly and severally.

10. Reasons for my finding are as under: (10.1). The Petitioner in his affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief had deposed that due to the accident, he received grievous injuries i.e., 1) 4x3 over abrasion on left temporal region; 2) Abrasion on Left and Right hands and also received grievous and external and internal injuries allover his body; that he was admitted in the Queen’s NRI Hospital, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, where he underwent treatment as an outpatient. To support his contention he got marked a Certified copy of the Wound Certificate (Ex.A.2) issued by the Queen’s NRI Hospital. According to the Certificate, he was first seen by the Dr. K.Raja Sagar, Medical Legal Consultant on 27.08.2020 at 10.20 A.M, and found the following injuries -

i) An abrasion 4x3 on the (Lt) Temporal Region; ii) Abrasion on (Lt) and (Rt) hands.

However, the Doctor who treated the injured had not given any opinion as to the percentage of disability.

(10.2). In the Cross-examination, the witness had deposed that he was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident and his wife was sitting as pillion rider. He admitted that the accident was occurred while he was taking right turn at Akkayyapalem Signal Junction. He further admitted that he was having Driving Licence but it was fallen at the time of the accident. He further admitted that his motorcycle was not covered with 7 insurance and that there are no prescriptions with him corresponding to the medical bills. The P.W1 failed to examine the Medical Officer, who treated him and issued Ex.A2 Wound Certificate to support his contentions.The

Insurance Company got marked a copy of the Policy as Ex.B.1 and filed a petition under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and under Order VIII

Rule 1-A(3) Cr.P.C. They admitted that the Policy was in force. But the

Insurance Company could not prove that the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of the Policy. It is established through the Accident Report that the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective Driving License as on the date of the accident. Since it is proved that the Ashok Leyland / Tusker Turbo vehicle was involved in the accident was covered with Insurance, the

Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in paying the compensation and it cannot avoid its liability. Hence, I am inclined to award compensation under the following heads:

1. Two Fractures @ Rs.15,000/- x 2 Rs. 30,000-00

2. Pain and sufferance Rs. 10,000-00

Total Rs. 40,000-00

In total a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only).

11. Issue No.4: As a result, this Petition is allowed-in-part with costs, awarding a compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) to the Petitioner together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the Petition i.e.,11.01.2021 till the date of deposit. The Respondents

Nos.1 to 3, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the

Petitioner. The Respondents are directed to deposit the above said amount into 8

Court within three months from the date of this Award. On such deposit, the

Petitioner is directed to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest thereon.

The Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only).

Dictated to the Stenographer, Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me open Court on this the 30th day of November, 2023

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL- CUM-VI-ADDL. DISTRICT

JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Petitioner: For the Respondents:

PW1: Manepalli Rambabu. -Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of

Petitioner:

Ex.A1: An Attested Copy of the FIR bearing No.466/2020 dated 27.08.2020 of IV Town Police Station for the offence under Sections 337 & 338 of the IPC. Ex.A2: An Attested Copy of the Wound Certificate of the petitioner dated 30.10.2020.

Ex.A3: An Attested Copy of the Accident Report issued by the M.V.Inspector

dated 29.08.2020.

Ex.A4: An Attested Copy of the Charge Sheet in FIR No.466/2020 for the offence under Sections 304-A of the IPC.

Ex.A5: An Attested Copy of the Insurance Policy bearing No.1503043120P100295488 issued on 04.04.2020 of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP31 TD0684.

Ex.A6: An Attested Copy of the Driving Licence of J.Chitti Babu.

Ex.A7: An Attested Copy of the Certificate of Registration of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP31 TD0684, dt.10.09.2012.

Ex.A8: An Attested Copy of the Certificate of Goods Carriage Permit bearing No.AP031/6796/PPC/2017 of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP31 TD0684 dated 15.07.2019.

Ex.A9: An Attested Copy of the Certificate of Fitness bearing No.FCY0017065/2019/AP031 of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP31 TD0684 dated 15.07.2019.

Ex.A10: Medical Bills (8) for an amount of Rs.22,173-93 Ps.

Respondent:

9

Ex.B1: A Certified copy of the Insurance Policy.

VI ADJ-CUM-CHAIRMAN/MACT, VSP

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present:- Sri Moka Suvarna Raju,

VI Additional District Judge,

Thursday, the 30 th day of November, 2023

C.M.A No.04/2023

Between:

1). Smt. Kottana Demudamma (Died).

2). Smt. Pentakota Kanta (Smt. Donka Kanta), W/o Late Mulinaidu, Hindu, aged 63 years, resident of D.No.39-22-19/1, Kalinganagar, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam. …Appellants/Petitioners/Plaintiffs And:

1. Smt. Chelikani Rajyalakshmi, W/o. Late C.V.Rao, Hindu, aged 69 years, residing at present at D.No.49-19-17, Lalithanagar, Visakhapatnam-16.

2. Sri Venkata Ramana, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, Hindu, aged about 50 years, resident of Lalithanagar, Visakhapatnam-16.

...Respondents/Defendants

C ivil Miscellaneous Appeal f iled u nder ORDER XLIII RULE 1 of the

C.P.C against the O rder D t .19.01.2023 passed in I.A No.223/2016 in

O.S No.234/2005 on the f ile of the Principal J unior C ivil J udge ’s C ourt ,

Bheemunipatnam .

Between: Smt. Pentakota Kanta (Smt. Donka Kanta), W/o Late Mulinaidu, Hindu, aged 63 years, resident of D.No.39-22-19/1, Kalinganagar, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam.

...Petitioner/Plaintiff

And:

1. Smt. Chelikani Rajyalakshmi, W/o. Late C.V.Rao, Hindu, aged 69 years, residing at present at D.No.49-19-17, Lalithanagar, Visakhapatnam-16.

2. Sri Venkata Ramana, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, Hindu, aged about 50 years, resident of Lalithanagar, Visakhapatnam-16.

...Respondents/Defendants

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was coming on 01.11.2023 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri V.V.Ravi Prasad & J.V.Rama Krishna, Advocates

for the Appellant/ Petitioner/ Plaintiff and of Sri S.N.Achanta, Advocate for the

Respondents/ Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court, made the following:-

2

:: O R D E R ::

1.The unsuccessful Petitioner/Plaintiff in the Interlocutory Application

No.223/2016 in O.S No.234/2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Bheemunipatnam has preferred this C.M.A challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the C.P.C vide I.A No.223/2016, dated 19.01.2023.

2.Before looking into the grounds on which, the appeal has been prefered it is necessary to go into the factual aspects. The Plaintiff had filed the above suit against the Defendants 1 and 2 for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. The suit was dismissed for default on 19.09.2014 for non prosecution. Thereafter, the Plaintiff had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act vide I.A No.222/2016 to condone the delay of 445 days in fling the application to restore the suit. The said application was allowed on 12.09.2018 on condition of paying a costs of

Rs.5,000/- to the Respondents/Defendants on or before 03.10.2018 and accordingly, costs was paid and the petition was allowed condoning the delay.

Subsequently, the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the C.P.C vide I.A

No.223/2016, was dismissed on 19.01.2023. Against the said dismissal order the present C.M.A has been filed on the following grounds:

a). that the order of the Trial Court is contrary to law against all the settled principles;

b). that the Trial Court failed to establish the admissions made by the respondents in their pleadings about the existence of the plaint schedule property;

c). that the Trial Court should not have dismissed the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC having allowed the Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation act, since one application is depending on the other; that the approach on the trial Court is pedantic, but should have been liberal and that to reach the technical approach could not be adopted as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Rathore Vs. Omkar Singh

3

reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 505. Thus, he submitted to set aside the dismissal order and to allow the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC and to restore the suit.

3.Thereafter, heard both the Counsel.

4. Now the point for determinationis whether the learned Trial Judge had erroneously dismissed the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the

CPC, if so, the order of dismissal be set aside and the petition be allowed ?

5. Finding: The order of the learned Trial Judge is found erroneous.

Hence, the same is to be set aside.

6. Reasons for my finding are as under: (6.1) It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff having filed the suit in the year 2005 did not commence trial till 19.05.2014. After dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with the plea that she is a rural woman; that she was under the impression that her Counsel would inform her every stage of the suit, but the Counsel could not concentrate on the Case since her daughter was unwell and submitted to condone the delay of 445 days.

The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam having considered the plea of the petitioner inclined to give her one more opportunity subject to costs. The same ground has been pleaded in the application filed under Order

IX Rule 9 of the CPC. Since the learned Judge, who allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was transferred, another Judge had taken up the petition under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC, but he had taken a different approach and dismissed the petition. Men may come and go but the system remain static. The order pronounced by the previous officer should have been taken into consideration since the plea in both the Petitions is one and the same and moreover, the petitioner was saddled with costs for her negligence. Thus, the approach of the learned Judge in dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC is found unreasonable and illegal. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

4

7 . As a result, this appeal is allowed without costs by setting aside the order dated 19.01.2023 in I.A No.223/2016 in O.S No.234/2005 filed under

Order IX Ruler 9 of the CPC on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Bheemunipatnam. Consequently, the application is allowed and the suit be restored to file.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me open Court on this the 30th of N o v e m b e r , 2023.

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

NIL

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Copy to:

The Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Bheemunipatnam with LCR.

5

Date of Presentation : 09.02.2023

Date of Filing : 09.02.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present:- Sri Moka Suvarna Raju,

VI Additional District Judge,

Thursday, the 30 th day of November, 2023

C.M.A No.04/2023

Between:

1). Smt. Kottana Demudamma (Died).

2). Smt. Pentakota Kanta (Smt. Donka Kanta), W/o Late Mulinaidu, Hindu, aged 63 years, resident of D.No.39-22-19/1, Kalinganagar, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam. …Appellants/Petitioners/Plaintiffs And:

1. Smt. Chelikani Rajyalakshmi, W/o. Late C.V.Rao, Hindu, aged 69 years, residing at present at D.No.49-19-17, Lalithanagar, Visakhapatnam-16.

2. Sri Venkata Ramana, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, Hindu, aged about 50 years, resident of Lalithanagar, Visakhapatnam-16.

...Respondents/Defendants

C ivil Miscellaneous Appeal f iled u nder ORDER XLIII RULE 1 of the

C.P.C against the O rder D t .19.01.2023 passed in I.A No.223/2016 in

O.S No.234/2005 on the f ile of the Principal J unior C ivil J udge ’s C ourt ,

Bheemunipatnam .

Between: Smt. Pentakota Kanta (Smt. Donka Kanta), W/o Late Mulinaidu, Hindu, aged 63 years, resident of D.No.39-22-19/1, Kalinganagar, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam.

...Petitioner/Plaintiff

And:

1. Smt. Chelikani Rajyalakshmi, W/o. Late C.V.Rao, Hindu, aged 69 years, residing at present at D.No.49-19-17, Lalithanagar, Visakhapatnam-16.

2. Sri Venkata Ramana, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, Hindu, aged about 50 years, resident of Lalithanagar, Visakhapatnam-16.

...Respondents/Defendants

The unsuccessful Petitioner/Plaintiff in the Interlocutory Application No.223/2016 in O.S No.234/2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam has preferred this C.M.A challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the C.P.C vide I.A No.223/2016, dated 19.01.2023.

This being a CMA, a fixed Court Fee of Rs.3/- is affixed under Article 3(i), Schedule-II of APCF and SV Act.

6

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was coming on 01.11.2023 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri V.V.Ravi Prasad & J.V.Rama Krishna, Advocates for the Appellant/ Petitioner/ Plaintiff and of Sri S.N.Achanta, Advocate for the Respondents/ Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration, the Court DOTH ORDER AND PASS :

D E C R E E

1. that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby allowed without costs by setting aside the order dated 19.01.2023 in I.A No.223/2016 in

O.S No.234/2005 filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC on the file of the

Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Bheemunipatnam;

2. that consequently, the application be and is hereby allowed and the suit be restored to file; and

3. that there be no costs in the circumstances of the case.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 30th day of November, 2023.

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

NO COSTS MEMO FILED ON EITHER SIDE.

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present:- Sri Moka Suvarna Raju, VI Additional District Judge,

Thursday, the 30th day of November, 2023

O.S No.09/2023

Between:

1. Smt. Avanapu Appayyamma, W/o. Late Sanyasi, Hindu, aged 49 years, Residing at Door No.3-195-2, Old Madhurawada, Near BSNL Layout, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam.

2. Smt. Agarapu Gowri, W/o. Eswar Rao, Hindu, Aged 26 years, Residing at Door No.3-195-2, Old Madhurawada, Near BSNL Layout, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam.

3. Smt. Agarapu Vijaya, W/o. Srinu, Akkivaram Village, Hindu, Aged 21 years, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

... Plaintiffs

And:

1. Smt. Tangeti Pydamma, W/o. Late Tangeti Apparao, Hindu, aged 59 years, Door No.1-120, Raja Veedhi, Pekeru Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District-531 219.

2. Smt. Patrapalli Narsayamma (Died).

3. Smt. Budhapati Sanyasamma, W/o Narasimhulu, Hindu, aged 66 years, Residing at Door No.1-1, Geddapeta Village, Korada, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District-531162.

4. Sri Narava Appala Raju, S/o. Late Chinnayya, Hindu, Aged 59 years, Door No.26-36, Ramalayam Veedhi, Mallayyapalem, Kommadi, Visakhapatnam-530048.

5. Sri Narava Ramana, S/o. Late Chinnayya, Hindu, Aged 52 years, Door No.13-97, Dhobi Colony, Kommadi, Madhurawada Post, Visakhapatnam- 530048.

6. Sri Narava Suribabu, S/o. Late Chinnayya, Hindu, aged 45 years, Residing at Door No.2-4B 61/3, Sector-VI, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam- 530017.

7. Sri Narava Govind, S/o. Late Chinnayya, Hindu, aged 38 years, Residing at Door No.13-97, Dhobi Colony, Kommadi, Madhurawada Post, Visakhapatnam-530048.

8. Smt. Chalapaka Manga, W/o Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 36 years, Residing at Door No.13-97, Dhobi Colony, Kommadi, Madhurawada Post, Visakhapatnam-530048.

9. Smt. Kanchi Rama Devi, W/o. K.Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 42 years, Residing at Door No.13-97, Dhobi Colony, Kommadi, Madhurawada Post, Visakhapatnam-530048.

... Defendants

2

This Petition was coming on 28.10.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.V.K.Naidu, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri

G.N.Murthy, Advocate for the Defendants 1, 3 to 9 and Respondent No.2 having been died pendent-late died having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 initially against the

Defendants 1 to 9 for partition of the Plaint Schedule Properties i.e., an extent of Ac.17-73 cents covered by Sy.No.54/4A, T.D.No.4, Narava Village,

Pendurthi Mandal with different boundaries.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are that the father-in-law of the 1st

Plaintiff and grandfather of the Plaintiffs 2 and 3 viz., Avanapu

Narasimhulu, Narava Chinnayya and Kasi Thatarao have jointly purchased an extent of Ac.20.50 cents under a Registered Sale Deed bearing

Document No.3080/1965 dated 09.10.1965, from one Patnala Venkadu,

Patnala Surappadu and others; that since then they jointly enjoyed the property; that till today the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are jointly enjoying the Plaint Schedule Properties; that about 55 years ago, the

District Collector, Visakhapatnam had acquired Ac.2-77 cents out of

Ac.20.50 cents for the purpose of Ryvada Canal and formation of road in the year 1980 from the ancestral of the plaintiffs and the remaining land an extent of Ac.17-73 cents is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants; that the Tahsildar of Visakhapatnam

Mandal bifurcated the Sy.No.54 and assigned new Survey Number i.e.,

Sy.No.54/4A - Part in respect of the Plaint Schedule Property and granted

Ryotwari Patta in favour of Patnala Venkudu, the Vendor of Avanapu

Narasimhulu, Narava Chinnayya and Kasi Thata Rao etc., that the Plaintiffs have demanded the Defendants to partition the Plaint Schedule

Properties, but they did not come forward; that recently, the Plaintiffs came to know that the Defendants colluded with each other and are trying 3 to alienate the Plaint Schedule Properties to one K.Satyanarayana Raju to defraud the Plaintiffs for nominal price. Hence, submitted to partition the

Plaint Schedule Properties.

3.After filing the suit, the Defendant No.2, had died. The Plaintiff No.1 had filed her affidavit declaring that the Defendant No.2, is the sister of her husband; that her husband and the Defendants 1 and 3 are the daughters of the deceased Narasimhulu; that they have no issues and that in view of the same the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the Defendants 1 and 3 became the legal-heirs of the Defendant No.2 and hence no steps to be taken. Accordingly, the affidavit was recorded recognizing the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the Defendants 1 and 3 as the legal-heirs of the Defendant No.2.

4.The Defendants 1 and 3 to 9 have requested for time to file Written

Statement and in the meantime they filed a Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the C.P.C stating that they entered into the settlement in terms of compromise.

5.According to the terms of compromise, the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 viz.,

Avanapu Appayyamma, Agarapu Gowri and Agarapu Vijaya and the

Defendants 1 & 3 viz., Tangeti Pydamma and Budhapati Sanyasamma have agreed to take 1/3rd share i.e., an extent of Ac.5-84 cents out of

Ac.17-73 cents after leaving site for road as mentioned in the Plaint ‘A’

Schedule attached to the petition. Likewise the Defendants 4 to 8 viz.,

Narava Appala Raju, Narava Suribabu, Narava Ramana, Narava Govind and Chalapaka Manga, have agreed to take 1/3rd share i.e., an extent of

Ac.5-84 Cents after leaving the site for road as shown in the Plaint ‘B’

Schedule and finally the Defendant No.9 Kanchi Ramadevi had agreed to receive 1/3rd share i.e., an extent of Ac.5-91 cents shown in Plaint ‘C’

Schedule attached to the petition. The Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and Defendants 1 & 3 to 9 have appeared before the Court and when enquired, admitted the settlement as per the terms of compromise and declared specified extents 4 which they agreed to receive. Accordingly, they have appended schedules showing the individual shares with defined boundaries duly enclosing Plan as well as location of each one’s share. This Court accordingly allowed the petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC and recorded the terms of compromise.

6. As a result, the suit is decreed without costs in terms of the compromise entered into among the Plaintiff s 1 to 3 and the

Defendants 1 and 3 to 9. The Offi ce is directed to draft a decree and get the same registered at the expenses of the parties.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me open Court on this the 30th day of November, 2023.

VI Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present:- Sri Moka Suvarna Raju, VI Additional District Judge,

Thursday, the 30th day of November, 2023

I.A No.449/2023 in O.S No.09/2023

Between:

1. Smt. Avanapu Appayyamma, W/o. Late Sanyasi, Hindu, aged 49 years, Residing at Door No.3-195-2, Old Madhurawada, Near BSNL Layout, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam.

2. Smt. Agarapu Gowri, W/o. Eswar Rao, Hindu, Aged 26 years, Residing at Door No.3-195-2, Old Madhurawada, Near BSNL Layout, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam.

3. Smt. Agarapu Vijaya, W/o. Srinu, Akkivaram Village, Hindu, Aged 21 years, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

... Petitioners/Plaintiffs

And:

1. Smt. Tangeti Pydamma, W/o. Late Tangeti Apparao, Hindu, aged 59 years, Door No.1-120, Raja Veedhi, Pekeru Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District-531 219.

2. Smt. Patrapalli Narsayamma (Died).

3. Smt. Budhapati Sanyasamma, W/o Narasimhulu, Hindu, aged 66 years, Residing at Door No.1-1, Geddapeta Village, Korada, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District-531162.

4. Sri Narava Appala Raju, S/o. Late Chinnayya, Hindu, Aged 59 years, Door No.26-36, Ramalayam Veedhi, Mallayyapalem, Kommadi, Visakhapatnam-530048.

5. Sri Narava Ramana, S/o. Late Chinnayya, Hindu, Aged 52 years, Door No.13-97, Dhobi Colony, Kommadi, Madhurawada Post, Visakhapatnam- 530048.

6. Sri Narava Suribabu, S/o. Late Chinnayya, Hindu, aged 45 years, Residing at Door No.2-4B 61/3, Sector-VI, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam- 530017.

7. Sri Narava Govind, S/o. Late Chinnayya, Hindu, aged 38 years, Residing at Door No.13-97, Dhobi Colony, Kommadi, Madhurawada Post, Visakhapatnam-530048.

8. Smt. Chalapaka Manga, W/o Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 36 years, Residing at Door No.13-97, Dhobi Colony, Kommadi, Madhurawada Post, Visakhapatnam-530048.

9. Smt. Kanchi Rama Devi, W/o. K.Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 42 years, Residing at Door No.13-97, Dhobi Colony, Kommadi, Madhurawada Post, Visakhapatnam-530048.

2

... Respondents/Defendants

This Petition was coming on 28.10.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.V.K.Naidu, Advocate for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and of Sri G.N.Murthy, Advocate for the Respondents/Defendants 1 and 3 to 9 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the Defendants 1 and 3 to 9 under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the C.P.C to record their compromise.

2.It is pleaded in the petition that the Plaintiffs have filed the suit against the Defendants for partition of the Plaint Schedule Property into three equal shares and to allot 1/3rd share to the Plaintiffs as well as the

Defendants 1 to 3 and 1/3rd share to the Defendants 4 to 8 and 1/3rd share to the Defendant No.9. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs and the

Defendants 1 and 3 to 9 have entered into amicable settlement and according to which the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 viz., Avanapu Appayyamma,

Agarapu Gowri and Agarapu Vijaya and the Defendants 1 & 3 viz., Tangeti

Pydamma and Budhapati Sanyasamma have agreed to take 1/3rd share i.e., an extent of Ac.5-84 cents out of Ac.17-73 cents after leaving site for

Road as mentioned in the ‘A’ Schedule attached to the Petition; that the Defendants 4 to 8 viz., Narava Appala Raju, Narava Suribabu, Narava

Ramana, Narava Govind and Challapu Manga, have agreed to take 1/3rd share i.e., an extent of Ac.5-84 cents after leaving the site for Road as shown in the ‘B’ Schedule attached to the Petition; that Defendant

No.9 Kanchi Ramadevi had agreed to receive 1/3rd share i.e., an extent of

Ac.5-91 cents shown in ‘C’ Schedule attached to the Petition.

3. The point for consideration is whether the compromise entered

into between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants 1 and 3 to 9 is

lawful and voluntary 3

4. Point: The Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the Defendants 1 and 3 to 9, have appeared before the Court and when enquired admitted the settlement as per the Terms of Compromise and specified the extents which they agreed to receive. The Plaintiffs have appended Schedules showing the individual shares with defined boundaries. They have enclosed a Plan as well showing the location of each one’s share which they agreed to receive out of the compromise. This Court having perused the contents of the compromise petition and heard the version of each one of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, satisfied that the compromise is lawful and voluntary.

5. As a result, this petition is allowed recording the terms of compromise.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me open Court on this the 30th day of November, 2023.

VI Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam