-1- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NALGONDA
Present: Sri M.Venkateswar Rao,
Senior Civil Judge.
Dated on this 20th day of August, 2022
O.S.No.250 of 2015
BETWEEN:
1.Pedapongu Ramulu @ Ramaiah S/o.Mattaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Coolie,
2.Pedapongu Meenamma, W/o Ramulu, Age:45 years, Occ: Housewife, Both are R/o.Gudur Village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. … Plaintiffs.
And
The Superintendent Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Nalgonda.
… Defendant.
The suit coming before me for hearing and for disposal in the presence of Sri K.Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs; Sri A.Suresh Babu, Learned Counsel for the Defendant; having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
1. This Suit is filed for awarding compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of one Venu due to electrocution alleging negligence on the part of defendant department.
2. Averments of the plaint in brief are:
i.The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are parents of deceased
Pedapongu Venu. On 25.02.2015 at about 9.30 A.M, the deceased -2- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG
Venu was after spraying the pesticide in his paddy at Gudur Village, he left to another portion of land, while he was passing through land of Yerramada Srinivas Reddy, in the meantime an electric wire which was already break down from 100 KV transformer No.SS-43, touched to his right leg of deceased Venu, as a result of which the deceased Venu received electric shock and died on the spot. In this regard, the plaintiff No.1 gave report to the police and the police registered a case in Crime No.54/2015 U/Sec.174 of Cr.P.C and that the Doctor who conducted Postmortem Examination over the dead body of deceased opined that the deceased Venu died due to electric shock.
ii.It is further contended that the death of deceased Venu due to gross negligent act of Defendant Corporation as the defendant corporation did not take proper precautions. As such the defendant corporation is responsible for the death of deceased
Venu.
iii.It is further stated that the deceased Venu aged 23 years, hale and healthy and he was an agriculturist and student and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m., and the same was contribute to the welfare and maintenance of his family. Due to sudden death of deceased the plaintiffs suffered mental agony and lost their earning member due to negligent act of Defendant Corporation. As such the -3- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG defendant Corporation is liable to pay the compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/-. Hence, present suit is filed.
3. After receiving the summons, the defendant filed written statement .
4. Averments of the written statement in brief are:
1.The plaint averments are not correct and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of those averments.
5. The defendant contended that most of the agriculturists adopted clandestine using of power supply during night time due to which there was an overload on power lines and the same has led to 11 KV disc failures and also snapping of conductor is taking place and that on previous night of 25.02.2015 there was heavy gale and wind, the L.T conductor which was emanating from SS-43 was snapped down and the same was root cause of the fatal accident and that it is Act of God and that there was no negligence on the part of defendant company.
6. Basing on the pleadings the following issues are framed by my predecessor on 15.02.2017:
1 Whether the husband of the 1 st plaintiff was electrocuted due to the negligence on the part of defendant?
-4- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim the damages from the defendant ?
3 To what relief?
7. This court have gone though the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties to the suit, and on careful analysis of the same, this court is of the view that the issue No.1 as settled by this court on 15.02.2017 needs correction to decide and adjudicate the matter on merits. It is settled law that when the parties to the suit are having knowledge of their rival's claim in full and lead their evidence to put forth their claims and to rebut the cases of others, then the court is empowered to amend or add the issues even at the time of passing final judgment. The law in this regard is also settled by the Hon‟ble Apex court in catena of decisions. In the present case also, the defendant who is well aware about the case of the plaintiff, and as the plaintiff is also having full knowledge about the defence raised by the defendant and as both the parties adduced sufficient evidence, this court holds that it is a fit case to amend the following issue No.1 in respect of which the evidence is already available on record on behalf of either side. For better adjudication of the matter while exercising the powers U/O 14 rule 10 of CPC, the issue No.1 is re-settled as under:
-5- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG
8. Issue No.1: “Whether the son of plaintiffs was
electrocuted and died due to the negligence on the part of
defendant department”.
9. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, PW1 examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the defendant DW.1 is examined and no documents marked.
10. Heard both sides. Written arguments filed for defendants.
Perused the record including written arguments.
11. ISSUE No.1 ( as amended ) and 2 : As the both issues are inter-related they are taken up together for consideration:
The contention of plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 is father and plaintiff No.2 is mother of deceased Venu who was aged about 23 years and who died due to electric shock on 25.02.2015 at about 9.30 A.M while the deceased Venu was passing through the land of
Y.Srinivas Reddy and that the electric wire which was already break down from 100 KV transformer No.SS-43 touched to his right leg, resulting which the deceased received electric shock died on spot due to negligence of defendant department and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation as prayed for.
12. On the other hand defendant department also admitted the said incident in their written statement, however contended that that most of the agriculturists adopted clandestine using of power -6- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG supply during night time due to which there was an overload on power lines and the same has led to 11 KV disc failures and also snapping of conductor is taking place and that on previous night of 25.02.2015 there was heavy gale and wind, the L.T conductor which was emanating from SS-43 was snapped down and the same was root cause of the fatal accident and that it is Act of God and that there was no negligence on the part of defendant company.
13. In support of contention of plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW1. The evidence of PW.1 in brief is that his deceased son Venu was aged about 23 years and that deceased died due to electric shock on 25.02.2015 at about 9.30 A.M while he was passing through the land of Y.Srinivas Reddy and that the electric wire which was already break down from 100 KV transformer
No.SS-43 touched to the right leg of deceased, resulting which the deceased received electric shock died on spot due to negligence of defendant department and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation.
14. Further in support of evidence of PW1, the Ex.A1 to
Ex.A5 marked. Ex.A1 is the Certified Copy of FIR in Cr.No.54/2015 issued by Tahsildar, Miryalguda, showing that on report given by
PW1, Police Miryalguda Rural registered a case in Cr.No.54/2015 on 25.02.2015. Ex.A2 is the Certified Copy of Scene of offence and -7- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG
Rough Sketch of spot, it shows that the alleged incident had taken place at the fields of one Y.Srinivas Reddy. Ex.A3 is the Certified
Copy of Inquest report of deceased Venu, it shows that the police
Miryalguda held inquest over the dead body of deceased Venu.
Ex.A4 is the Certified Copy of PME report of deceased Venu, it shows that the deceased died due to electric shock. Ex.A5 is the
Certified Copy of Final report in Cr.No.54/2015 filed by the police wherein it was specifically mentioned that electric wire which was already break down from 100 KV transformer No.SS-43 touched to the right leg of deceased Venu resulting which the deceased died due to electrocution.
15. As seen from the pleadings, there is no dispute by both parties that the deceased died due to electric shock. Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 also proving the death of deceased due to electric shock on 25.02.2015 at about 9.30 A.M while the deceased Venu was passing through the land of Y.Srinivas Reddy and that the electric wire which was already break down from 100 KV transformer No.SS-43 touched to his right leg, resulting which the deceased received electric shock died on spot.
16. However defendant department contended that most of the agriculturists adopted clandestine using of power supply during night time due to which there was an overload on power lines and the -8- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG same has led to 11 KV disc failures and also snapping down of conductor is taking place and that on previous night of 25.02.2015 there was heavy gale and wind, the L.T conductor which was emanating from SS-43 was snapped down and the same was root cause of the fatal accident and that it is Act of God and that there was no negligence on the part of defendant company.
17. Further the cross examination of PW1 did not cause any dent to the evidence spoken by PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and the admissions of defendant in their written statement and chief affidavit proving the initially that the said accident was occurred due to snapping down of the L.T conductor wife of defendant department which was emanating from SS-43 in the fields of Y.Srinivas Reddy.
18. The contention of defendant is that there is no negligence on the part of defendant and that the deceased died due to his own negligence.
19. The defendants tried by contending that the burden of proof certainly lay on the plaintiffs to prove negligence on the part of the defendants. But, The Hon’ble High court of AP in case of
Mothukuri Bheemavva And Ors. vs Andhra Pradesh State
Electricity reported in 1999 ACJ 1269 was pleased to held that:
-9- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG “It is thus clear from the decided cases that the burden of proof in a case of this nature rests on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence on its part but not on the plaintiff to prove negligence.”
20. In SyadAkbar v. State of Karnataka, 1980 ACJ 38 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
“The rule of res ipsa loquitur, in reality, belongs to the law of Torts where negligence is in issue. But the peculiar circumstances constituting the event or accident, in a particular case, may themselves proclaim in concordant, clear and unambiguous voices the negligence of somebody as the cause of the event or accident. It is to such cases that the maxim res ipsa loquitur may apply, if the cause of the accident is unknown and no reasonable explanation as to the cause is coming forth from the defendant. To emphasize the point, it may be reiterated that in such cases, the event or accident -10- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG must be of a kind which does not happen in the ordinary course of things if those who have the management and control use due care. Further the event which caused the accident must be within the defendant's control. The reason for this second requirement is that where the defendant has control of the thing which caused the injury, he is in a better position than the plaintiff to explain how the accident occurred”.
21. Thus, the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the Hon‟ble High Court of AP in the above cases is that burden of proof in a case of this nature rests on the defendant department to prove that there was no negligence on its part but not on the plaintiff to prove negligence.
22. Now this court will examine, whether defendant department is able to prove that there is no negligence on their part as required under law.
23. To prove their contention, the defendant examined
Assistant Divisional Engineer as DW1. No documents are marked on behalf of defendant.
-11- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG
24. The DW1 also deposed that his predecessor made inquiry into the cause of death of deceased person in this case and as per the said inquiry report, on 25.02.2015 at about 9.30 A.M., the deceased while passing through the agricultural fields of one Y.Srinivasa Reddy came into contact with live electric conductor and thus died on the spot due to electrocution. The DW1 further deposed that the defendant herein had already taken defense pleas with regard to the cause of death of deceased due to Un-authorized utilization of electricity in the said village and more particularly the farmer i.e., Y.Srinivas Reddy in whose agricultural fields the deceased sustained electrocution due to snapping of conductor which was fallen on the ground while the deceased was passing through the agricultural fields and sustained electrocution and that the alleged electrocution occurred only due to sheer negligence of deceased and thus died on spot.
25. Further the DW1 deposed that during routine inspection conducted by the field staff of their department in Gudur Village, many farmers used to pilfer the electricity to their dwelling houses as well as to their agricultural purpose in their respective fields and therefore, due to un-authorized using of electricity by hooking wires to the electric poles by the villagers of Gudur village and due to over load on the transformers, the conductor got over heated and got snapped down from pole and more particularly in this case it so happened due to -12- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG which the deceased sustained electrocution and died on spot and that there is no negligence on the part of staff of defendant in maintaining the power lines intact as alleged by the plaintiffs.
26. Further the DW1 deposed that after occurrence of incident the police registered a case in Cr.No.54/2015 U/s 174 of
Cr.P.C only and no case is registered against the staff of the defendant and that as seen from the contents of inquest report in Cr.No.54/2015, it can be noticed that the deceased while passing through agricultural fields of said Y.Srinivas Reddy the deceased came in contact with live snapped conductor and sustained electrocution and as such said
Y.Srinivas Reddy is solely responsible for the cause of electrocution to the deceased, but the plaintiffs failed to implead the said person as necessary party to the suit to claim damages against him and therefore suit is not maintainable, hence, there is no negligence on the part of staff of defendant and therefore prayed to dismiss the suit.
27. The above evidence of DW1 is also establishing that on 25.02.2015 at about 9.30 A.M., the deceased while passing through the fields of Y.Srinivas Reddy came into contact with live electrical conductor wire and died on the spot due to electrocution.
28. Further, according to defendant pleading, they tried to defend themselves by stating as most of the agriculturists adopted clandestine using of power supply during night time due to which there -13- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG was an overload on power lines and the same has led to 11 KV disc failure and also snapping of conductor is taking place and further contended that due to heavy gale and wind the electric conductor wire was snapped down and the same was root cause of fatal accident.
29. But except self serving statement of DW1 there is no document is placed before the court to prove the contention of defendant that there was gale and wind prior to date of the incident as deposed by DW1. Further no document is filed to show that the agriculturists are using power supply during night time Un-authorizedly.
Further during cross examination DW1 categorically admitted that no criminal cases were filed against the farmers for the alleged theft of electricity of their department and he also admitted that the electricity wire of 11 KV should be above 5.1 meters from ground level.
30. If really the agriculturists used the electricity un- authorizedly, the electricity department should have registered the case against them. But except self serving statement of Defendant in its written statement as well as in evidence of DW.1, there is no piece of paper is filed to show that the farmers used the electricity un- authorizedly and that it was act of God. Thus defendants failed to prove their contention with any cogent evidence.
31. Therefore, this court holds that, the death of deceased
Venu was due to the negligence of the defendant department in not -14- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG properly maintaining the power lines and the incident was occurred resulting death of deceased and therefore the defendant department is liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs.
32. Further the learned counsel for defendant argued that as the incident taken place at Guduru Village of Miryalguda Mandal, this court has no jurisdiction.
33. On the other hand, the learned counsel for plaintiff argued that as the defendant department is located within the jurisdiction of this court, as such this court has got jurisdiction.
34. Admittedly, the alleged incident was taken place at
Guduru Village of Miryalguda Mandal. Further, it is admitted fact that office of defendant is located within the jurisdiction of this court.
Further, according to Sec.19 of Civil Procedure Code, the suit for compensation can be filed either at the place of incident or at the place where the defendant resides or carry some business.
35. According to Sec.19 of CPC, it is for the plaintiff to opt either of the jurisdiction. Therefore the contention of defendant does not hold water.
36. Further contention of defendant is that one Y.Srinivas
Reddy was necessary party to the proceedings, but he is not impleaded, as such suit is liable to be dismissed.
-15- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG
37. On the other hand, the learned counsel for plaintiff argued that said Srinivas Reddy is neither necessary party nor proper party and therefore non impleading of said Srinivas Reddy is not fatal to the case of plaintiff.
38. Admittedly, the incident was taken place at the fields of
Y.Srinivas Reddy. But there is no cause of action against said Srinivas
Reddy to pay the compensation. It is the duty of defendant department to maintain the electrical wire properly and failure of maintenance of electric wire gives raise the negligence on the part of defendants which gives cause of action to the plaintiff to file against the defendant.
Therefore non-impleading of said Srinivas Reddy is not fatal to the case of plaintiff.
39. When it comes to quantum of compensation, Hon’ble
High court of AP in case of Mothukuri Bheemavva And Ors. vs
Andhra Pradesh State Electricity reported in 1999 ACJ 1269 was
pleased to held that in assessing the quantum of damages, the principles adopted by the courts for the determination of compensation to be awarded in fatal accident cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, can also be adopted in the instant case.
40. To award the compensation, the plaintiffs have to prove the age, earnings of the deceased and their dependency.
-16- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG
41. As per Ex.A1-FIR, the age of deceased was mentioned as 23 years. Further in Ex.A3 inquest report also the age of deceased was mentioned as 23 years. Further in Ex.A4-PME also the age of deceased was mentioned as 23 years. Further in Ex.A5 also the age of deceased was 23 years. Further, there is no denial on the part of defendant that as to the age of the deceased as 23 years as per above documents. Further the D.W.1 also did not deny that the age of deceased was 23 years. Therefore, considering the above material documents on record it can be safely held that the deceased was aged about 23 years as on the date of his death.
42. Further, according to plaintiffs, the deceased was a agriculturist and he used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. On the other hand, the defendant denied that the deceased was a agriculturist and he used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month.
43. The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove that the deceased was a agriculturist and he used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. But, there is no material produced by plaintiffs to prove that the deceased was a agriculturist and he had income of Rs.10,000/- per month.
44. In this regard in Kishan Gopal v. Lala [2013 ACJ 2594 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “ … We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non- earning -17- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs.30,000/- and further taking the young age of the parents, namely the mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident, by applying the legal principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 x 15 = 4,50,000 and 50,000/- under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma
Thomas,...”
45. Further in the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298,
between Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another, their Lordships observed that; “Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas(set out in
Column 2 of the Table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra (Set out in Column 3 of the Table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (Set out in -18- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG
Co. 4 of the table above); many follow the multiplier given in second column of the table in the Second Schedule to MV Act(extracted in column 5 of the Table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second
Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the Table above). For example, if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per
Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in
Column 2 of the Second Schedule to M.V.Act.
Some Tribunals, as in this case apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistence. We are concerned with cases falling under Section 166 and not under section 163-A of M.V.Act. In cases falling under Section 166 of the M.V.Act,
Davies method is applicable” “We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4 of the Table above(prepared by applying -19- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG
Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 21 and 21 to 25), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M.17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
46. Considering the ratio laid down by their Lordships, the multiplier '18' has to be taken for the reason that the deceased is aged 23 years at the time of accident and having two parents.
47. As stated above, plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of the deceased- Venu. So, total dependents are two in number. In the above said decision their Lordships held with regard to the deduction for personal and living expenses, that:
“Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, were of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one- third (1/3 rd ) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth (1/4 th ) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth (1/5 th ) where the number of the dependent family members exceed six”.
-20- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG
48. As per the above ratio, 1/3rd of the amount has to be deducted for the expenses which the deceased would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive, since the dependents are two in number. Since the deceased was 23 years at the time of his death and his income can be taken at Rs.30,000/- per month. Out of the above said amount, 1/3rd has to be deducted in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive i.e. 10,000/- per annum (Rs.30,000/- x 1/3rd = 10,000/-. So, the yearly contribution of the deceased to the family is taken into consideration as Rs.20,000/- (Rs.30,000/- minus Rs.10,000/-). If the annual dependency of the deceased is multiplied with „18‟, the loss of contribution of the deceased comes to Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.20,000/- x multiplier „18). Thus, in all, the plaintiffs are entitled to Rs.3,60,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased due to negligence of department of defendant and that the defendant department is liable to pay the said amount with interest. These two issues are held in favour of the
Plaintiffs accordingly.
49. ISSUE No.3 :To what relief ?
In the result, suit is decreed with costs in part awarding a compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty -21- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG
Thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization.
i. The Defendant department is directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty
Thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization to the Plaintiffs within three months from the date of the Judgment.
ii. The amount of compensation shall be distributed among plaintiffs equally and each plaintiff will get 1/2 of share each.
iii. The defendant is liable to pay costs to the plaintiffs.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 20 th day of August, 2022.
Sd/-
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
NALGONDA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS
PW-1 /04.08.2021 P.Ramulu @ Ramaiah
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
DW-1/22.10.2021 C.Venugopal
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS
Ex.A.1 : is the Certified Copy of FIR in Cr.No.54/2015 issued by
Tahasildar, Miryalguda.
-22- dt. 20.08.2022 Judgment in O.S No.250 of 2015of SCJ, NLG
Ex.A.2 : is the Certified Copy of Scene of offence and rough sketch of spot, issued by Tahasildar, Miryalguda.
Ex.A.3 : is the Certified Copy of Inquest Report of deceased Venu, issued by Tahasildar, Miryalguda.
Ex.A.4 : is the Certified Copy of PME report of deceased Venu, issued by Tahasildar, Miryalguda.
Ex.A.5 : is the Ceritified Copy of Final Report in Cr.No.54/2015, issued by Tahasildar, Miryalguda.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT : -NIL-
Sd/-
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
NALGONDA.