N.Santosh Kumar

Page No.1 of total 5 pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (P.O.A.)

ACT-CUM-III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Present: N.SANTOSH KUMAR, Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-III Addl. District Judge, Khammam

Dated this the 06th day of February, 2023

E.A.No.04 of 2022

in

E.P.No.255 of 2018

in

Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017

BETWEEN: Pallella Balaraju, S/o.Narayana, Age:32 years, Occu:Helper in Mechanical Department at SC Railways,KazipetaWarangalDistrict, R/o.H.No.30/1. ...…Petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3

And

1. M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Khammam Branch, represented by its authorized Signatory and GPA Holder K.Srinivasulu, S/o.Rangaiah, Age:37 years, Occu:Regional Manager, Khammam, …Respondent/D.Hr.

2. Bodapatla Rajendar Prasad, S/o.Bikshapathi, Age:37 years, Occu:SR Chicken Shop at Khammam, R/o.H.No.1-67, Dornakal Ammapalem, Warangal,

3. Mallemadugu Kannaiah, S/o.Chandraiah, Age:40 years, Occu:SA in ZPSS Razole, Kuravi Warangal District, R/o.H.No.1-21, Dornakal Ammapalem. .… Respondents/J.Drs.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 10.01.2023 in the presence of Sri Vallapu Lingaiah, Counsel for the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3and of SriK.Kranthi Kumar,Counsel for the

Page No.2 of 5 total pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

Respondent/D.Hr.; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of the Counsel for the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3 ; and the Counsel for the Respondent/D.Hr., having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is an Execution Application filed by the Petitioner/Judgment

Debtor No.3 under Order XXI Rule 26 read with section 151 of the Code of the Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) praying this court to stay the execution of the decree in E.P.No.255 of 2018 on the file of the

Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-

III Addl. District Judge, Khammam, till disposal of the Execution.

2.The brief case of the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3 as per the affidavit accompanied with the Application is that the Respondent/Decree

Holder has filed the Arbitration Case against him and others for recovery of money basing on the Promissory Note against him and others, for grant of salary attachment and the case was posted to 20.10.2022 for filing counter. On that day, the Petitioner/J.Dr.No.3 could not attend before this court due to ill-health with severe knee pains and fever. In these circumstances, the Court may consider and dispense with issuance of urgent notice and simultaneous notice together with stay order. Hence, the petition.

Page No.3 of 5 total pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

3.The Respondent/Decree Holder filed counter opposing the

Execution Application by submitting that the petition filed by the

Petitioner/J.Dr. No.3 is not maintainable, as the Petitioner/J.Dr. did not file any documentary evidence in support of his contention and that the

Petitioner/J.Dr. has got knowledge about the filing of the Execution

Petition and passing of exparte orders; finally prayed to dismiss the

Petition with exemplary costs.

4.No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

5.Heard the Arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.

6.Basing on the contentions of both parties, now the point that would arise for consideration before this court is that:

“Whether there are valid grounds to stay the execution of

decree in E.P.No.255 of 2018 passed by the Arbitrator vide

Arbitration case No.87/2017, as prayed for ?”

POINT :

7.The un-disputed facts of the present application on hand are that the Respondent/D.Hr., filed an Arbitration case before the learned

Arbitrator for recovery of money basing on the Promissory Note, alleged to have been executed by the Petitioner/J.Dr.

8.The record reveals that after due enquiry, learned Arbitrator passed an Award directing J.Dr to pay a sum of Rs.5,47,411/- together with costs

Page No.4 of 5 total pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

and interest. According to the Respondent/Decree Holder basing on the

Arbitral Award, he filed the present E.P.No.255 of 2018 on the file of this court for execution of Decree in Arbitration case by way of attachment of salary of J.Dr.

9.According to the Petitioner/J.Dr., due to his ill-health, he could not be able to appear before this court in execution of the proceedings, hence, execution of the Execution Petition may be stayed, till disposal of this Execution Petition.

10.The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Decree Holder seriously opposed the prayer sought by the Petitioner/J.Dr., is not at all maintainable.

11.In view of the rival contentions of both parties now it is relevant to go through the legal position under Order XXI Rule 26 of the CPC, as follows:

When Court may stay execution:

The sub section (1) of R.26 of Order 21 shows that:

“Upon sufficient cause being shown, stay the execution of such decree for a reasonable time, to enable the judgment- debtor to apply to the Court by which the decree was passed, or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree or the execution thereof, for an order to stay execution.”

Page No.5 of 5 total pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

12. As could be seen from the facts of the present case on hand are that after passing of an Arbitration Award, the Petitioner/J.Dr. did not mention whether he had preferred any appeal challenging the Arbitration

Award. Moreover, the Petitioner/J.Dr. did not state anything whatsoever as to whether he had filed any petition to set aside the exparte Award.

The above said facts would go to suggest that the Petitioner/J.Dr. did not choose to challenge the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator.

Therefore, it appears that there is no sufficient cause being shown by the

Petitioner/J.Dr., to stay the execution of the Award. Moreover, that there are no valid grounds to stay the execution of the Award and accordingly, the Petition is to be dismissed.

13. In the result, this petition is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.I), corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 31st day of January, 2023.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER THE S.Cs AND THE S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-III ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE, KHAMMAM.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

- NIL -

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER S.Cs AND S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-III ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE, KHAMMAM.

Corrections carried out by:

Page No.6 of 5 total pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

Page No.1 of total 5 pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (P.O.A.)

ACT-CUM-III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Present: N.SANTOSH KUMAR, Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-III Addl. District Judge, Khammam

Dated this the 06th day of February, 2023

E.A.No.04 of 2022

in

E.P.No.255 of 2018

in

Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017

BETWEEN: Pallella Balaraju, S/o.Narayana, Age:32 years, Occu:Helper in Mechanical Department at SC Railways,KazipetaWarangalDistrict, R/o.H.No.30/1. ...…Petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3

And

1. M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Khammam Branch, represented by its authorized Signatory and GPA Holder K.Srinivasulu, S/o.Rangaiah, Age:37 years, Occu:Regional Manager, Khammam, …Respondent/D.Hr.

2. Bodapatla Rajendar Prasad, S/o.Bikshapathi, Age:37 years, Occu:SR Chicken Shop at Khammam, R/o.H.No.1-67, Dornakal Ammapalem, Warangal,

3. Mallemadugu Kannaiah, S/o.Chandraiah, Age:40 years, Occu:SA in ZPSS Razole, Kuravi Warangal District, R/o.H.No.1-21, Dornakal Ammapalem. .… Respondents/J.Drs.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 10.01.2023 in the presence of Sri Vallapu Lingaiah, Counsel for the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3and of SriK.Kranthi Kumar,Counsel for the

Page No.2 of 5 total pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

Respondent/D.Hr.; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of the Counsel for the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3 ; and the Counsel for the Respondent/D.Hr., having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is an Execution Application filed by the Petitioner/Judgment

Debtor No.3 under Order XXI Rule 26 read with section 151 of the Code of the Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) praying this court to stay the execution of the decree in E.P.No.255 of 2018 on the file of the

Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-

III Addl. District Judge, Khammam, till disposal of the Execution.

2.The brief case of the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3 as per the affidavit accompanied with the Application is that the Respondent/Decree

Holder has filed the Arbitration Case against him and others for recovery of money basing on the Promissory Note against him and others, for grant of salary attachment and the case was posted to 20.10.2022 for filing counter. On that day, the Petitioner/J.Dr.No.3 could not attend before this court due to ill-health with severe knee pains and fever. In these circumstances, the Court may consider and dispense with issuance of urgent notice and simultaneous notice together with stay order. Hence, the petition.

Page No.3 of 5 total pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

3.The Respondent/Decree Holder filed counter opposing the

Execution Application by submitting that the petition filed by the

Petitioner/J.Dr. No.3 is not maintainable, as the Petitioner/J.Dr. did not file any documentary evidence in support of his contention and that the

Petitioner/J.Dr. has got knowledge about the filing of the Execution

Petition and passing of exparte orders; finally prayed to dismiss the

Petition with exemplary costs.

4.No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

5.Heard the Arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.

6.Basing on the contentions of both parties, now the point that would arise for consideration before this court is that:

“Whether there are valid grounds to stay the execution of

decree in E.P.No.255 of 2018 passed by the Arbitrator vide

Arbitration case No.87/2017, as prayed for ?”

POINT :

7.The un-disputed facts of the present application on hand are that the Respondent/D.Hr., filed an Arbitration case before the learned

Arbitrator for recovery of money basing on the Promissory Note, alleged to have been executed by the Petitioner/J.Dr.

8.The record reveals that after due enquiry, learned Arbitrator passed an Award directing J.Dr to pay a sum of Rs.5,47,411/- together with costs

Page No.4 of 5 total pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

and interest. According to the Respondent/Decree Holder basing on the

Arbitral Award, he filed the present E.P.No.255 of 2018 on the file of this court for execution of Decree in Arbitration case by way of attachment of salary of J.Dr.

9.According to the Petitioner/J.Dr., due to his ill-health, he could not be able to appear before this court in execution of the proceedings, hence, execution of the Execution Petition may be stayed, till disposal of this Execution Petition.

10.The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Decree Holder seriously opposed the prayer sought by the Petitioner/J.Dr., is not at all maintainable.

11.In view of the rival contentions of both parties now it is relevant to go through the legal position under Order XXI Rule 26 of the CPC, as follows:

When Court may stay execution:

The sub section (1) of R.26 of Order 21 shows that:

“Upon sufficient cause being shown, stay the execution of such decree for a reasonable time, to enable the judgment- debtor to apply to the Court by which the decree was passed, or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree or the execution thereof, for an order to stay execution.”

Page No.5 of 5 total pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

12. As could be seen from the facts of the present case on hand are that after passing of an Arbitration Award, the Petitioner/J.Dr. did not mention whether he had preferred any appeal challenging the Arbitration

Award. Moreover, the Petitioner/J.Dr. did not state anything whatsoever as to whether he had filed any petition to set aside the exparte Award.

The above said facts would go to suggest that the Petitioner/J.Dr. did not choose to challenge the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator.

Therefore, it appears that there is no sufficient cause being shown by the

Petitioner/J.Dr., to stay the execution of the Award. Moreover, that there are no valid grounds to stay the execution of the Award and accordingly, the Petition is to be dismissed.

13. In the result, this petition is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.I), corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 31st day of January, 2023.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER THE S.Cs AND THE S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-III ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE, KHAMMAM.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

- NIL -

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER S.Cs AND S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-III ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE, KHAMMAM.

Corrections carried out by:

Page No.6 of 5 total pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

Page No.1 of total 5 pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (P.O.A.)

ACT-CUM-III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Present: N.SANTOSH KUMAR, Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-III Addl. District Judge, Khammam

Dated this the 06th day of February, 2023

E.A.No.04 of 2022

in

E.P.No.255 of 2018

in

Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017

BETWEEN: Pallella Balaraju, S/o.Narayana, Age:32 years, Occu:Helper in Mechanical Department at SC Railways,KazipetaWarangalDistrict, R/o.H.No.30/1. ...…Petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3

And

1. M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Khammam Branch, represented by its authorized Signatory and GPA Holder K.Srinivasulu, S/o.Rangaiah, Age:37 years, Occu:Regional Manager, Khammam, …Respondent/D.Hr.

2. Bodapatla Rajendar Prasad, S/o.Bikshapathi, Age:37 years, Occu:SR Chicken Shop at Khammam, R/o.H.No.1-67, Dornakal Ammapalem, Warangal,

3. Mallemadugu Kannaiah, S/o.Chandraiah, Age:40 years, Occu:SA in ZPSS Razole, Kuravi Warangal District, R/o.H.No.1-21, Dornakal Ammapalem. .… Respondents/J.Drs.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 10.01.2023 in the presence of Sri Vallapu Lingaiah, Counsel for the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3and of SriK.Kranthi Kumar,Counsel for the

Page No.2 of 5 total pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

Respondent/D.Hr.; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of the Counsel for the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3 ; and the Counsel for the Respondent/D.Hr., having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is an Execution Application filed by the Petitioner/Judgment

Debtor No.3 under Order XXI Rule 26 read with section 151 of the Code of the Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) praying this court to stay the execution of the decree in E.P.No.255 of 2018 on the file of the

Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-

III Addl. District Judge, Khammam, till disposal of the Execution.

2.The brief case of the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3 as per the affidavit accompanied with the Application is that the Respondent/Decree

Holder has filed the Arbitration Case against him and others for recovery of money basing on the Promissory Note against him and others, for grant of salary attachment and the case was posted to 20.10.2022 for filing counter. On that day, the Petitioner/J.Dr.No.3 could not attend before this court due to ill-health with severe knee pains and fever. In these circumstances, the Court may consider and dispense with issuance of urgent notice and simultaneous notice together with stay order. Hence, the petition.

Page No.3 of 5 total pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

3.The Respondent/Decree Holder filed counter opposing the

Execution Application by submitting that the petition filed by the

Petitioner/J.Dr. No.3 is not maintainable, as the Petitioner/J.Dr. did not file any documentary evidence in support of his contention and that the

Petitioner/J.Dr. has got knowledge about the filing of the Execution

Petition and passing of exparte orders; finally prayed to dismiss the

Petition with exemplary costs.

4.No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

5.Heard the Arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.

6.Basing on the contentions of both parties, now the point that would arise for consideration before this court is that:

“Whether there are valid grounds to stay the execution of

decree in E.P.No.255 of 2018 passed by the Arbitrator vide

Arbitration case No.87/2017, as prayed for ?”

POINT :

7.The un-disputed facts of the present application on hand are that the Respondent/D.Hr., filed an Arbitration case before the learned

Arbitrator for recovery of money basing on the Promissory Note, alleged to have been executed by the Petitioner/J.Dr.

8.The record reveals that after due enquiry, learned Arbitrator passed an Award directing J.Dr to pay a sum of Rs.5,47,411/- together with costs

Page No.4 of 5 total pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

and interest. According to the Respondent/Decree Holder basing on the

Arbitral Award, he filed the present E.P.No.255 of 2018 on the file of this court for execution of Decree in Arbitration case by way of attachment of salary of J.Dr.

9.According to the Petitioner/J.Dr., due to his ill-health, he could not be able to appear before this court in execution of the proceedings, hence, execution of the Execution Petition may be stayed, till disposal of this Execution Petition.

10.The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Decree Holder seriously opposed the prayer sought by the Petitioner/J.Dr., is not at all maintainable.

11.In view of the rival contentions of both parties now it is relevant to go through the legal position under Order XXI Rule 26 of the CPC, as follows:

When Court may stay execution:

The sub section (1) of R.26 of Order 21 shows that:

“Upon sufficient cause being shown, stay the execution of such decree for a reasonable time, to enable the judgment- debtor to apply to the Court by which the decree was passed, or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree or the execution thereof, for an order to stay execution.”

Page No.5 of 5 total pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

12. As could be seen from the facts of the present case on hand are that after passing of an Arbitration Award, the Petitioner/J.Dr. did not mention whether he had preferred any appeal challenging the Arbitration

Award. Moreover, the Petitioner/J.Dr. did not state anything whatsoever as to whether he had filed any petition to set aside the exparte Award.

The above said facts would go to suggest that the Petitioner/J.Dr. did not choose to challenge the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator.

Therefore, it appears that there is no sufficient cause being shown by the

Petitioner/J.Dr., to stay the execution of the Award. Moreover, that there are no valid grounds to stay the execution of the Award and accordingly, the Petition is to be dismissed.

13. In the result, this petition is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr.I), corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 31st day of January, 2023.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER THE S.Cs AND THE S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-III ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE, KHAMMAM.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

- NIL -

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER S.Cs AND S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-III ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE, KHAMMAM.

Corrections carried out by:

Page No.6 of 5 total pages Orders in E.A.No.04 of 2022 in E.P.No.255 of 2018 in Arbitration Case No.87 of 2017 dt.06.02.2023.

Page No.1 of 5 total pages I.A.No.5 of 2022 in M.V.O.P.No.63 of 2018

dated 06.02.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM- III

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Present :: NAMA SANTOSH KUMAR, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- III Addl. District Judge, Khammam.

Thursday, the 06th day of February, 2023

I.A.No.5 of 2022

in

M.V.O.P.No.63 of 2018

BETWEEN: The New India Assurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager, Old Club Road, Khammam town,KhammamDistrictvidePolicy No.9800003117015000341 valid from 18.08.2017 to 17.08.2018

....Petitioner/Respondent No.2.

And

1. Md. Imran, S/o.Nazeer, Age:31 years, Rider-cum-owner of Active Motor cycle bearing No.TS04-QTR-5400, R/o.H.No.7-34 Bharat College Road, Madhira town, Madhira, Mandal of Khammam District,

2. Sk.Jaheer Ahammad, S/o.Yasin, Age:45 years, Occu:Coolie, R/o.Muslim Colony, Madhira Post, ….Respondents/Respondent No.1/Claim Petitioner.

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing on 18.01.2023 in the presence of Sri B.Srikanth, Advocate for the Petitioner/Respondent No.2; Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; Smt. P.Padmavthi and Sri S.Dharmendra, Advocates for the Respondent No.2/Claim Petitioner; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments of the Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent No.2; Respondent No.2/Claim Petitioner and having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:

Page No.2 of 5 total pages I.A.No.5 of 2022 in M.V.O.P.No.63 of 2018

dated 06.02.2023

O R D E R

This is an Interlocutory Application filed by the Petitioner/Respondent

No.2 under Order 16 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying this court to summon the driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle and to produce the driving licence of the driver of the crime vehicle, Registration

Certificate of the crime vehicle, Insurance Policy and xerox of Aadhar Card and to give evidence

2.The brief case of the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 the Assistant Manager of the New India Assurance Company, Khammam Branch of Khammam as per the affidavit, which accompanied to the petition is that the Respondent No.2/Claim

Petitioner filed the above MVOP claiming compensation and that as per the record, the crime vehicle was driven by the driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle without holding any valid driving licence at the time of accident, hence the driver- cum-owner of the crime vehicle may be directed to produce Driving Licence of

Respondent No.1, Registration Certificate of crime vehicle, Aadhar card of

Respondent No.1 and Policy document of Crime Vehicle and also to give evidence.

3.Counter filed by the Respondent No.2/Claim Petitioner opposing the petition by alleging that the petition filed by the Petitioner/Respondent No.2

Page No.3 of 5 total pages I.A.No.5 of 2022 in M.V.O.P.No.63 of 2018

dated 06.02.2023

with false allegations and that R.Ws.1 and 2 were already examined and Ex.B.1 was marked and that there is no necessity to direct the Respondent No.1 to produce the policy and other documents and the petition is filed to drag on the matter.

4.No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

5.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material on record.

6.Basing on contentions of both parties, now the points that would arise for consideration before this court, are that:

1. Whether there are any valid grounds to direct Respondent

No.1 to produce the driving licence of driver of crime vehicle,

Registration Certificate of the Crime vehicle, Insurance Policy of

crime vehicle and Aadhar Card of driver of crime vehicle?

2. Whether there are valid grounds to direct the Respondent No.1 to give evidence?

POINTS No.1 AND 2:

7.As seen from the record, the Respondent No.2/Claim Petitioner filed the above OP claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. In the above said case, the Respondent No.1, who was the rider-cum-owner of the crime motor cycle did not choose to contest the matter and accordingly, he was set ex parte. In these circumstances, the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 company filed the above said petition.

Page No.4 of 5 total pages I.A.No.5 of 2022 in M.V.O.P.No.63 of 2018

dated 06.02.2023

8.As could be seen from the contentions of both parties, it is the specific contention of the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 is that there is no Driving Licence to the driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle, as there is Policy violation. Though the Respondent No.2/claim Petitioner opposed the petition, but it is a fact that

Order XXVI Rule 7 C.P.C. empowers the court to direct to give evidence or to produce any documents, which are in its power or possession. The Claim

Petitioner filed the above case claiming compensation against the Respondent

No.1 by alleging that Respondent No.1 is the driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle and admittedly, he did not choose to contest the matter. Therefore, the

Respondent No.1, who is the driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle would definitely in possession of the said documents, which are require before the court for proper adjudication of the matter.

9.Though the Respondent No.2/Claim Petitioner opposed by filing counter, if the Respondent No.1 is directed to produce the documents and to give evidence, the truth would come before the court for proper adjudication and that no prejudice would caused to Respondent No.2/Claim Petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that there are merits in the case and accordingly, the petition is to be allowed. Accordingly, Points No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the Petitioner/Respondent No.2.

Page No.5 of 5 total pages I.A.No.5 of 2022 in M.V.O.P.No.63 of 2018

dated 06.02.2023

10.In the result, the petition is allowed and the Respondent No.1/driver- cum-owner of the crime vehicle is directed to produce his driving licence,

Registration Certificate of the Crime Vehicle, Insurance Policy of the Crime vehicle, his Aadhar Card with a further direction to give evidence before the court.

Typed to my dictation, by the Stenographer (Gr.I) corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 06th day of February, 2023.

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM- III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KHAMMAM.

Appendix of Evidence - nil -

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM- III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KHAMMAM.

Corrections carried out by:

Page No.1 of 5 total pages I.A.No.5 of 2022 in M.V.O.P.No.63 of 2018

dated 06.02.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM- III

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Present :: NAMA SANTOSH KUMAR, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- III Addl. District Judge, Khammam.

Thursday, the 06th day of February, 2023

I.A.No.5 of 2022

in

M.V.O.P.No.63 of 2018

BETWEEN: The New India Assurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager, Old Club Road, Khammam town,KhammamDistrictvidePolicy No.9800003117015000341 valid from 18.08.2017 to 17.08.2018

....Petitioner/Respondent No.2.

And

1. Md. Imran, S/o.Nazeer, Age:31 years, Rider-cum-owner of Active Motor cycle bearing No.TS04-QTR-5400, R/o.H.No.7-34 Bharat College Road, Madhira town, Madhira, Mandal of Khammam District,

2. Sk.Jaheer Ahammad, S/o.Yasin, Age:45 years, Occu:Coolie, R/o.Muslim Colony, Madhira Post, ….Respondents/Respondent No.1/Claim Petitioner.

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing on 18.01.2023 in the presence of Sri B.Srikanth, Advocate for the Petitioner/Respondent No.2; Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; Smt. P.Padmavthi and Sri S.Dharmendra, Advocates for the Respondent No.2/Claim Petitioner; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments of the Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent No.2; Respondent No.2/Claim Petitioner and having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:

Page No.2 of 5 total pages I.A.No.5 of 2022 in M.V.O.P.No.63 of 2018

dated 06.02.2023

O R D E R

This is an Interlocutory Application filed by the Petitioner/Respondent

No.2 under Order 16 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying this court to summon the driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle and to produce the driving licence of the driver of the crime vehicle, Registration

Certificate of the crime vehicle, Insurance Policy and xerox of Aadhar Card and to give evidence

2.The brief case of the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 the Assistant Manager of the New India Assurance Company, Khammam Branch of Khammam as per the affidavit, which accompanied to the petition is that the Respondent No.2/Claim

Petitioner filed the above MVOP claiming compensation and that as per the record, the crime vehicle was driven by the driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle without holding any valid driving licence at the time of accident, hence the driver- cum-owner of the crime vehicle may be directed to produce Driving Licence of

Respondent No.1, Registration Certificate of crime vehicle, Aadhar card of

Respondent No.1 and Policy document of Crime Vehicle and also to give evidence.

3.Counter filed by the Respondent No.2/Claim Petitioner opposing the petition by alleging that the petition filed by the Petitioner/Respondent No.2

Page No.3 of 5 total pages I.A.No.5 of 2022 in M.V.O.P.No.63 of 2018

dated 06.02.2023

with false allegations and that R.Ws.1 and 2 were already examined and Ex.B.1 was marked and that there is no necessity to direct the Respondent No.1 to produce the policy and other documents and the petition is filed to drag on the matter.

4.No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

5.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material on record.

6.Basing on contentions of both parties, now the points that would arise for consideration before this court, are that:

1. Whether there are any valid grounds to direct Respondent

No.1 to produce the driving licence of driver of crime vehicle,

Registration Certificate of the Crime vehicle, Insurance Policy of

crime vehicle and Aadhar Card of driver of crime vehicle?

2. Whether there are valid grounds to direct the Respondent No.1 to give evidence?

POINTS No.1 AND 2:

7.As seen from the record, the Respondent No.2/Claim Petitioner filed the above OP claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. In the above said case, the Respondent No.1, who was the rider-cum-owner of the crime motor cycle did not choose to contest the matter and accordingly, he was set ex parte. In these circumstances, the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 company filed the above said petition.

Page No.4 of 5 total pages I.A.No.5 of 2022 in M.V.O.P.No.63 of 2018

dated 06.02.2023

8.As could be seen from the contentions of both parties, it is the specific contention of the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 is that there is no Driving Licence to the driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle, as there is Policy violation. Though the Respondent No.2/claim Petitioner opposed the petition, but it is a fact that

Order XXVI Rule 7 C.P.C. empowers the court to direct to give evidence or to produce any documents, which are in its power or possession. The Claim

Petitioner filed the above case claiming compensation against the Respondent

No.1 by alleging that Respondent No.1 is the driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle and admittedly, he did not choose to contest the matter. Therefore, the

Respondent No.1, who is the driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle would definitely in possession of the said documents, which are require before the court for proper adjudication of the matter.

9.Though the Respondent No.2/Claim Petitioner opposed by filing counter, if the Respondent No.1 is directed to produce the documents and to give evidence, the truth would come before the court for proper adjudication and that no prejudice would caused to Respondent No.2/Claim Petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that there are merits in the case and accordingly, the petition is to be allowed. Accordingly, Points No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the Petitioner/Respondent No.2.

Page No.5 of 5 total pages I.A.No.5 of 2022 in M.V.O.P.No.63 of 2018

dated 06.02.2023

10.In the result, the petition is allowed and the Respondent No.1/driver- cum-owner of the crime vehicle is directed to produce his driving licence,

Registration Certificate of the Crime Vehicle, Insurance Policy of the Crime vehicle, his Aadhar Card with a further direction to give evidence before the court.

Typed to my dictation, by the Stenographer (Gr.I) corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 06th day of February, 2023.

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM- III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KHAMMAM.

Appendix of Evidence - nil -

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM- III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KHAMMAM.

Corrections carried out by: