Sri. P Narayana Babu

1 of 11 MVOP No.350 of 2018/V-ADJC, Jangaon.

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL – CUM – V-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: II-FTC,

WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

Friday, the 2nd day of August, 2019.

PRESENT: Sri P. NARAYANA BABU,

Chairman, M.A.C.T-cum- V-Addl. District Judge, II-FTC, Warangal at Jangaon.

M.V.O.P. No.350 OF 2018.

Between:

1. Bethoju Bhagyalaxmi, W/o. Bethoju Anjaneyulu, Aged 33 years, Occ: House wife.

2. Bethoju Poojitha, D/o. Bethoju Anjaneyulu, Aged 15 years, Occ: Student. (Minor)

3. Bethoju Sai Adithya, S/o. Bethoju Anjaneyulu, Aged 13 years, Occ: Student. (Minor)

The petitioners No.2 and 3 being minor are represented through next friend/mother i.e. petitioner No.1.

All are R/o. H.No.5-6-37, Ambedkar Nagar, Jangaon, Jangaon district.…Petitioners

AND

1. Anumula Ramesh, S/o. Kanukaiah, Aged 40 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. H.No.1-7-88/4, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District.

2. Talakoti Rajitha, W/o. Anumula Ramesh, Aged 36 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No.1-7-88/4, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District.

3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office at 5-9-116 and 7 and 5-9121 and 122, Green Square Plaza, Vaddiraj Complex, Beside ICICI Bank, Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana-506001. …Respondents

This petition is coming on 31.07.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Panuganti Srinivas, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Y. Nagender, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri M. Suresh Babu, Advocate for the respondent No.3 and after hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Tribunal delivered the following :

2 of 11 MVOP No.350 of 2018/V-ADJC, Jangaon.

:: A W A R D ::

1)This is the claim petition filed under Section 166 (1) (c) of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1998 by the petitioners for grant of compensation of Rs.23,22,000/- for the death of Bethoju

Anjaneyulu (deceased) due to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

2)The averments of the petition, in brief, are as follows:-

On 13.11.2017 at about 6.30 P.M., while the deceased Bethoju

Anjaneyulu was crossing the road near Velugu office, Jangaon, in the meantime the respondent No.1 came driving the Car bearing No.TS-03-

EP-5350 in rash and negligent manner at high speed, proceeding from

Hanamkonda side, dashed the deceased, as a result the deceased received fatal injuries to his both legs, ribs and was shifted to Area

Hospital, Jangaon, but while undergoing treatment at about 7.00 P.M., he succumbed to the injuries.

That on the complaint made by the petitioner No.1, the police

Jangaon registered the case in crime No.421/2017 for the offence under

Section 304-A of IPC against the respondent No.1 and after investigation filed the charge sheet.

That the petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased Bethoju Anjaneyulu. At the time of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, aged 39 years and was skilled worker attending caste profession of carpentry and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The parents of the deceased were predeceased to the deceased. The deceased is the only earning member of the petitioners and he used to contribute his entire earnings to the family. Due to 3 of 11 MVOP No.350 of 2018/V-ADJC, Jangaon.

sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners are put to shock, mental agony and lost earning member of the family. The petitioner No.1 lost her life partner and the petitioners No.2 and 3 lost care and guidance of their father.

The respondent No.2 is the registered owner of the crime vehicle

Car bearing No.TS-03-EP-5350 and the respondent No.1 caused the accident by driving the said car. The respondent No.2 insured the car with the respondent No.3 vide Policy No.3001/1-52722400/00/000 valid from 31.12.2016 to 30.12.2017 and the policy was subsisting as on the date of accident. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally are liable to pay compensation with costs and interest.

3)The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the material averments of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 filed memo adopting the counter filed by the respondent No.1. The claim against the respondents is false, vague and the petitioners cannot get any claim as the respondent No.1 never involved in any accident. They denied the occurrence of accident, involvement of the crime vehicle and pleaded that the petitioners created cock and bull story for the purpose of instant petition only and the respondent No.1 was falsely implicated by the petitioners. There is no cause of action for the petitioners. The petitioners not came to the

Court with clean hands and there are no merits in the petition. There is no lights in front of the alleged place of accident i.e., Velugu office and the alleged vehicle was not involved in the said accident and taking advantage of the State highway, the respondent No.1 was implicated and his vehicle was not involved in the accident. Finally prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4 of 11 MVOP No.350 of 2018/V-ADJC, Jangaon.

4)The respondent No.3/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company

Ltd., filed counter denying the material averments of the petitioner.

They denied the manner of accident, occurrence of accident, involvement of the crime vehicle and deceased, rash and negligence on the part of driver of crime Car bearing No.TS-03-EP-5350, issuance of insurance policy to the crime vehicle, age, income, avocation and health condition of the deceased at the time of accident and seeks the petitioners to strict proof of the same. The Insurance company denied its liability on the ground of violation of provisions under Section 134 (c) of M.V. Act. The compensation claimed is excessive, arbitrary and out of proportions and the petitioners are not entitled for any amount. The

Insurance Company submitted that it is not liable to pay any compensation unless and until it is proved that the driver of crime vehicle was having valid driving licence and the vehicle was road worthy to ply at the material point of accident. It is submitted that the unfortunate accident took place due to gross negligence on the part of the deceased since he was unable to walk on the road by following the traffic rules and observing the vehicle. Further, the respondent cannot be made liable to pay any compensation unless and until the petitioners and the respondent No.1 are produced and proved the FIR, Charge sheet, MVI report, R.C. book, driving licence, Permit and Fitness certificate before the Court and they are in force at the time of accident.

Apart from that, the petitioner are put to strict proof that they have not filed any claim petition in any other Tribunal. The Insurance company denied that the petitioners are the only legal heirs of the deceased and seeks the petitioners to strict proof of the same. The Insurance company seeks protection under Sections 147, 149 and 170 of M.V. Act and

Section 64 (v) (B) of Insurance Act, 1938. The Insurance company submitted that in the event of awarding compensation in favour of the 5 of 11 MVOP No.350 of 2018/V-ADJC, Jangaon.

petitioners with interest, such interest should be restricted to 6% per annum only and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

5)Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been settled for trial:

i) Whether the accident occurred on 13.11.2017 at about 6.30 P.M., near Velugu office, Jangaon, by Car bearing No.TS-03-EP-5350 and husband of the petitioner No.1 died due to in fatal road traffic accident?

ii)Whether the respondent No.1 was riding the motor Car bearing No.TS-03-EP-5350 by rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased?

iii)Whether the respondent No.2 is owner of the crime motor Car bearing No.TS-03-EP-5350?

iv)Whether the respondent No.3 had issued Insurance Policy in favour of the respondent No.2?

v)Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?

vi)Whether the petitioners paid proper Court fees?

vii)To what relief?

6)To prove the claim of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 herself examined as PW.1 and one eye witness examined as PW.2 and got

Exts.A1 to A7 marked. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.3 examined its Legal Manager as

RW.2 and got Ext.B1 Insurance Policy bearing No.3001125574600/00/000 marked and the same was in force from 31.12.2016 to 30.12.2017.

7)The counsel for the claimants submitted the arguments which is reiteration of the claim petition averments. The counsel for the respondents submitted arguments reiterating the counter averments.

6 of 11 MVOP No.350 of 2018/V-ADJC, Jangaon.

8)ISSUES NO.1 TO 7: Perused of the oral evidence and documentary evidence of the petitioners and respondents.

9)Ex.A1 is the FIR No.421/2017 on the file of the Police Station,

Jangaon, dated 13.11.2017. It is reveals that PW.1 is the defacto- complainant informed before the Police Station Jangaon on 13.11.2017 that her husband (deceased) was met with accident caused by the respondent No.1 vide Car bearing No.TS-03-EP-5350 and died while undergoing treatment at Area Hospital, Jangaon. Basing on that the poice Jangaon registered the crime under Ex.A1 for the offence under

Section 304-A of IPC against the respondent No.1. Ex.A2 reveals that inquest panchanama in crime No.421/2017, dt.14.11.2017. It is established that the deceased died due to road traffic accident caused by the Car bearing No.TS-03-EP-5350 on 13.11.2017 at about 6.30 P.M., in the evening. Ex.A2 Inquest panchanama and Ex.A3 Postmortem examination report established that the deceased was 40 years at the time of accident and the deceased’s occupation was shown as labour. As per Ex.A3 Postmortem examination report established that the deceased died due to multiple fractures, shock and hemorrhage prior to postmortem examination report.

10)Ex.A4 is the Charge sheet in C.C. No.18/2018 on the file of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon. It is reveals that the respondent

No.1 is shown as accused and PW.2 is shown as eye witness and stood as

LW.4. The investigation established that the respondent No.1 had committed an offence liable for punishment under Section 304-A of the

IPC. Ex.A5 is the Accident Report submitted by the Motor Vehicle

Inspector in crime No.421/2017 of Police Station Jangaon. It is established that the crime vehicle inspected on 17.11.2017 at about 4.35 P.M., at Police Quarters, Jangaon and that the crime vehicle 7 of 11 MVOP No.350 of 2018/V-ADJC, Jangaon.

damaged dent on hood, wind shield broken, registration mark bent, dent on bumper, front windscreen wiper damaged and the Motor Vehicle

Inspector opined that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Ex.A5 established that the crime vehicle was involved in the crime. Ex.A6 is the crime details from in crime No.421/2017 established that the accident occurred before the office of Velugu near Social Welfare Residential School of Jangaon village on 13.11.2017. Ex.A7 is the original Salary certificate dated 2.7.2018 issued by Tirumala Timber Depot. It is established that the deceased worked with Tirumala Timber Depot and earned Rs.12,000/- per month.

11)The evidence of PW.1 is the replica of the claim petition averments. During the cross examination of PW.1 it is established that

PW.1 is the wife of the deceased and petitioners No.2 and 3 are children of the deceased. It is established that PW.1 lodged the complaint before the police under Ex.A1 and parents of the deceased was no more at the time of accident. The in-laws of PW.1 died prior to the death of her husband (deceased). The testimony of PW.2 reveals that the deceased worked with his Timber Mart and the deceased died due to met with accident on 13.11.2017 at about 6.30 P.M. The counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 does not elicited much more except the above facts from Pws.1 and 2.

12)The respondent No.1 deposed as RW.1 and his testimony reveals the avements of the counter. During the cross examination, it is elicited that RW.1 admitted that the respondent No.2 is owner of the crime vehicle bearing No.TS-03-EP-5350 and wife of RW.1 and he is having valid driving licence LMV with motor cycle gear and they having valid insruance Policy under Ex.B1 and the same was in force from 31.12.2016 to 30.12.2017. RW.1 admitted that on 13.11.2017 himself driving the 8 of 11 MVOP No.350 of 2018/V-ADJC, Jangaon.

crime vehicle and proceeded from Hyderabad to Warangal and his Car was damaged due to mishap by another vehicle and a person’s body fell on his car windglass, as such front glass was broken. Further admitted that he has involved in crime under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Further admitted that immediately after the accident himself informed 108 ambluance and 100. It is clearly established that and proved that no other vehicles involved in crime and crime vehicle had damaged with this accident.

13)The respondent No.3 examined its Legal Manager as RW.2 and testimony reveals that RW.2 is not eye witness to the accident and he admitted that Ex.B1 Insurance policy is issued by the ICICI Lombard

General Insurance Company in favour of the respondent No.2. During the cross examination RW.2 admitted that Ex.B1 was in force at the time of accident.

14)The oral evidence and the documentary evidence established that the deceased died in road traffic accident on 13.11.2017 at about 6.30

P.M., before the Velugu office due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 of Car bearing No.TS-03-EP-5350. PW.1 is wife of the deceased and the petitioners No.2 and 3 are children of the deceased. Due to the death of the deceased, the petitioners were fell on the road on their fate and also lost love and affection of the deceased.

PW.1 became a widow. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents No.1 to 3. The respondent No.1 is driver of crime vehicle and respondent No.2 is owner of crime vehicle.

The respondent No.2 is having vicarious liability and respondent No.3 is indemnifier of the respondent No.2. Next point for consideration is to what amount the petitioners are entitled?

9 of 11 MVOP No.350 of 2018/V-ADJC, Jangaon.

15)In deciding the quantum of compensation, I rely on the guidelines of the landmark judgment in the case ofSARLA VERMA v. DELHI

TRANSPORT CORPORATIONreported in 2009 ACJ 1298 and NATIONAL

INSURANCE COMPANY v. PRANAY SETI (reported in CONSTITUTIONAL

BENCH Online SCC 1270). As per the oral evidence of PW.1 and

Exts.A2-Inquest report and Ex.A3-PME report, it is established that the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of accident. The oral evidence and documentary evidence of PW.2 established that the deceased was worked with PW.2 in Timber mart and he get Rs.12,000/- per month. The same is considered. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased would comes to Rs.12,000/-x12=1,44,000/-. In the present case, there are three claimants depending upon the income of the deceased. As per Sarla Verma and Pranay Seti’s case cited supra, 1/4th amount of earnings of the deceased is deducted towards his personal and living expenses. After deducting 1/4th from the annual income of the deceased, which is Rs.36,000/-, the contribution of the deceased to his family would comes to Rs.1,08,000/-. The suitable multiplier is 15 (fifteen). If the annual income of the deceased is multiplied with 15, it comes to Rs.16,20,000/- (Rs.1,08,000/-x15) is awarded towards loss of dependency. A sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards transportation charges, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate, love and affection. In all, the petitioners are awarded a sum of

Rs.18,00,000/- as compensation. As per Ex.B1, the insurance policy of the crime vehicle was in force at the material point of time. Therefore, the respondent No.1 being driver, the respondent No.2 being owner and the respondent No.3 being the insurer of the respondent No.2, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

10 of 11 MVOP No.350 of 2018/V-ADJC, Jangaon.

16)The amount of compensation awarded to the petitioners under various heads are shown hereunder in the below table:

ParticularsAmount Loss of dependency16,20,000=00 Loss of consortium40,000=00 Transportation Charges20,000=00 Funeral expenses20,000=00 Loss of estate, love and affection1,00,000=00 TOTAL 18,00,000=00

17)The Hon’ble Apex Court decided the interest in MAGMA GENERAL

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM (reported in Civil Appeal

No.9581 of 2018, dated 18.9.2018, that interest @ 12% per annum can be awarded. As such, the petitioners are entitled to 12% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Accordingly the issues are answered.

18)In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs by granting the following reliefs:

i.The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- only. (Rupees Eighteen lakhs only).

ii.The petitioners are entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

iii.The respondents No.1 to 3 shall jointly and severally liable to pay awarded compensation.

iv.The remaining claim of the petitioners is dismissed without costs.

v.The petitioner No.1 who is the widow of the deceased is entitled a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, the petitioners No.2 and 3, who are minor children of the deceased, are entitled a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each, with proportionate costs and interest.

11 of 11 MVOP No.350 of 2018/V-ADJC, Jangaon.

vi.The petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw 80% of the awarded amount after the expiry of the appeal time and remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank for a period of two years. The entire amount of the minor petitioners No.2 and 3 shall be kept in the fixed deposit in Nationalized Bank until their majority.

vii.Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

viii.Time granted for deposit of the amount is 30 days from the date of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2nd day of August, 2019.)

CHAIRMAN,

M.A.C.T.-CUM-V-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:

PW.1 Bethoju Bhagyalaxmi PW.2 Bandi Vinod

For Respondents:

RW.1 Anumalla Ramesh RW.2 Md. Babu

:EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR No.421/2017 of PS Jangaon dt.13.11.2017. Ex.A2 certified copy of Inquest report dt.14.11.2017 in crime No.421/2017. Ex.A3 certified copy of Postmortem Examination report in in crime No.421/2017, dt.14.11.2017. Ex.A4 certified copy of Charge sheet in C.C. No.18/2018 on the file of JFCM, Jangaon, dt.21.12.2017. Ex.A5 certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector report in crime No.421/2017, dt.17.11.2017. Ex.A6 certified copy of Crime details form in crime No.421/2017, dt.13.11.2017. Ex.A7 Original Salary certificate dt.2.7.2018 issued by Thirumala Timber depot.

For Respondents:

Ex.B1 Insurance Policy bearing No.3001/125574600/00/000, valid from 31.12.2016 to 30.12.2017 issued by R.3.

CHAIRMAN,

M.A.C.T.-CUM-V-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

1 of 10 AS No.153 OF 2017/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

IN THE COURT OF THE V-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

Wednesday, the 3rd day of October, 2018.

PRESENT: Sri P. NARAYANA BABU,

V-Addl. District Judge, II-FTC, Warangal at Jangaon.

APPEAL SUIT NO.153 OF 2017.

Between:

Gadepaka Krishna, S/o. Late Ramaiah, Age 52 years, Occ: Guard in South Central Railway, R/o. Secunderabad. …Appellant/defendant AND

Gadepaka Rajamani, W/o. Krishna, Age 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Jangaon town and district.

…Respondent/plaintif

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2017 passed in

O.S. No.102 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon.

Between:

Gadepaka Rajamani…Plaintif

AND

Gadepaka Krishna…Defendant

This appeal suit is coming on 26.9.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence Sri V. Prasad Rao, Counsel for the appellant and of Sri G. Naga Rajeshwar Rao, Counsel for the respondent and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

:: JUDGMENT ::

This is an appeal suit preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2017 passed in Original Suit No.102 of 2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, decreeing the suit in part with costs filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff in trial court directing the appellant/defendant in trial court to pay the enhanced monthly 2 of 10 AS No.153 Of 2017/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent/plaintiff in trial court from the date of the order.

2.The parties are being referred as arrayed before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3.The plaintiff filed the suit for enhancement of maintenance under

Section 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The plaintiff’s marriage was performed with the defendant on 15.3.1974 as per Hindu

Rites and Customs and out of their wedlock, they begot a son by name

Srinivas @ Srinu. After the birth of son, the defendant developed hatredness towards the plaintiff, started ill-treating the plaintiff and neglected to maintain the plaintiff and her son. The defendant driven out the plaintiff out of his matrimonial home and since then the plaintiff has been living on her own. Subsequently, the defendant married another lady. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a case vide M.C. No.3 of 1985 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon and maintenance was ordered by the said Court on 2.1.1990. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant preferred a criminal revision petition and the same was dismissed. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed maintenance suit vide O.S.

No.259 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon and the Court ordered monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- vide decree dated 12.6.2007.

Aggrieved by the said decree, the defendant preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed. It is further contention of the plaintiff that the defendant has been paying the awarded maintenance irregularly and falling in arrears and the plaintiff is in advanced age of suffering ailments, unable to meet her medical expenses, rental and her daily needs out of the maintenance, as such the plaintiff requires enhanced maintenance @

Rs.26,000/- per month. It is submitted that the defendant being an employee in the Railways and promoted as Guard, there is drastic hike in 3 of 10 AS No.153 OF 2017/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

his salary and is getting net salary of Rs.68,000/- per month. Therefore, in view of the present cost of living and in view of requirements of the plaintiff, she prayed the court to enhance the maintenance to Rs.26,000/- per month.

4.On the other hand, the defendant filed written statement admitting his marriage with the plaintiff and awarding of maintenance in M.C. No.3 of 1985 and O.S. No.259 of 2002 in favour of the plaintiff, but denied the rest of the contents of the plaint. The defendant submitted that he has been paying the ordered maintenance as part of his salary attachment. It is submitted that the plaintiff has got own house in Veldanda village and living a comfortable life residing in her house. The defendant contended that the plaintiff abruptly claiming enhanced maintenance without showing any change of circumstances entitling her to claim Rs.26,000/- per month, the plaintiff was hale and healthy and not suffering with any chronic disease and the plaintiff made all baseless allegations with lies and with concocted stories. He further contended that the plaintiff is member of DWAKRA group and earns not less than Rs.15,000/- per month by vending vegetables, milk and curd and the plaintiff filed the present petition only to harass the defendant and put him to sufferance and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:

i) Whether the plaintiff-wife is entitled for enhanced maintenance of Rs.26,000/- per month as prayed?

ii)Whether the defendant has sufficient means and capacity to pay maintenance as sought by the plaintiff?

iii)Whether the plaintiff has sufficient earning capacity to maintain herself?

iv) To what relief?

4 of 10 AS No.153 Of 2017/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

6.The plaintiff in order to establish her case got herself examined as

PW.1, examined one more witness as PW.2 and got documents marked as

Exts.A1 to A3. In rebuttal, the defendant himself got examined as DW.1 and got documents marked Exts.B1 to B3 on his behalf.

7.The learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, having heard both sides and perusing the material evidence available on record, decreed the suit in part with costs.

8.Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree passed by the learned

Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, the defendant came in appeal assailing the

findings of the trial Court and further contended that the claim of the respondent for enhancement of maintenance is quite astronomical and baseless and the lower court ought to have given weightage and consideration in negotiating the claim to a litigative character respondent since from 1985 by way of filing M.C. No.3 of 1985 and O.S. No.259 of 2002 and ought to have consider the continuance, sustenance of the respondent in both cases totally paying Rs.2,600/- for over a period of more than a decade. The lower court failed to appreciate the testimony of evidence adduced by the appellant and came to wrong conclusion and erred in enhancing the maintenance from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. The lower court erred in accepting the evidence of respondent without putting it to scrutiny and instead of resting the burden of proof on the respondent for proving alleged diseases and requirements of maintenance. The lower court erred in answering the settled issues and gave wrong judgment and prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for.

9.Heard both sides.

10.The point for consideration of this Court is as under:

5 of 10 AS No.153 OF 2017/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

Whether the impugned judgment and decree in Original

Suit No.102 of 2015, dated 24.7.2017 on the file of the

Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, Warangal district, sufers

from any infirmity either on facts or on law and whether

the same is liable to be set aside?

11.POINT: The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the appellant and their marriage was performed in the year 1974 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs and

Traditions prevailing in their community and the appellant is a

Government employee in South Central Railway as Train Guard and wife of the appellant i.e., respondent is a house wife. The respondent herein is the wife of the appellant has filed M.C. No.3 of 1985 and she is receiving

Rs.2,600/- per month from the respondent towards maintenance. There is no dispute regarding the relationship between the appellant and respondent herein. The appellant filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2017 passed in O.S. No.102 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon.

12.For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed in

O.S. No.102 of 2015. The plaintiff filed the suit for enhancement of

monthly maintenance amount under Section 25 of the Hindu Adoption and

Maintenance Act from Rs.2,600/- to Rs.26,000/- per month. The trial Court partly decreed the suit with costs directing the appellant herein to pay enhanced monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of this decree and judgment in O.S. No.102 of 2015 i.e., dt.24.7.2017.

Previously the appellant herein has paid Rs.2,600/- to the respondent towards monthly maintenance and there is no dispute between the parties. After filing of the appeal, the appellant herein has been paying

Rs.5,000/- per month as per this Court’s interim orders vide I.A. No.299 of 2017, dated 19.1.2018.

6 of 10 AS No.153 Of 2017/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

13.Further, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant herein is Railway Guard and working at Secunderabad and he is aged about 52 years. The contention of the appellant is that the trial

Court failed to appreciate the testimony of evidence adduced by the appellant and the respondent and approaching to wrong conclusion and erred in enhancing the maintenance from Rs.2,600/- to Rs.10,000/- per month, which is four times to the original maintenance i.e., previous maintenance of Rs.2,600/- per month. The arguments of the appellant’s counsel is replica of the grounds of appeal as mentioned supra and further emphasizely submitted that the appellant married with another lady and he is having mother and unmarried children and the trial Court did not consider the bonafide certificates submitted by the appellant, who is having minor children and he has to spend educational expenses of his minor children. Further, he submitted that the respondent herein is the sole daughter to her parents and she is living luxurious life and her parents also having movable and immovable properties and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to enhancement of the maintenance and prayed to set aside the trial Court judgment and decree dated 24.7.2017.

14.On the other hand, the respondent counsel admitted the relationship of the respondent and the appellant and submitted that the appellant is employee of South Central Railway as Train Guard and he is getting income of Rs.1,16,000/- per month and the appellant herein has submitted Exts.B1 to B3 before the trial Court. Ex.B1 is the alleged

Bonafide certificate of daughter of the appellant herein and Ex.B1 shows that it is issued in favour of V. Laxmi Poojitha, D/o. G. Krishna. It is clear from the above bonafide certificate that V. Laxmi Poojitha is not the daughter of G. Krishna and he has claimed that V. Laxmi Poojitha is daughter of the appellant herein, is false. Further, he submitted that

Ex.B2 is the Bonafide certificate of V. Neelamber, S/o. G. Krishna and 7 of 10 AS No.153 OF 2017/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

bonafide certificate is issued by A.V. College of Arts, Science and

Commerce, Gaganmahal, Hyderabad and it is undated one and it shows that V. Neelamber, S/o. G. Krishna. Exts.B1 and B2 are fabricated one for the sympathy purpose created by the appellant herein. Ex.B3 is the salary certificate shows that the basic pay of the appellant herein is

Rs.53,500/-, gross salary is Rs.57,854/- and after deductions net payment is Rs.47,232/-, is also created and fabricated one for the purpose of this case. If once basic pay is of Rs.53,600/- and how it comes to, after deductions, net pay Rs.47,232/- and the appellant herein misrepresented

before the Court being a public servant.

15.Further, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent and the appellant till today, they are not divorced and the respondent herein is old aged lady depending on the mercy of her parents, who are senior citizens and the appellant is also having liability to maintain his old aged in-laws since his in-laws are maintaining the respondent herein and the respondent herein is suffering with old aged ailments and prayed that the appellant herein having sufficient means to maintain undivorced wife and his in-laws as a public servant and getting of Rs.1,16,000/- per month. Further, he prayed this Court that the trial

Court has enhanced the amount from Rs.2,600/- to Rs.10,000/- only where the respondent herein has filed the enhancement petition for Rs.26,000/- per month as per the living standards of the appellant.

16.In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent has filed reportable judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case REEMA SALKAN v. SUMER SINGH SALKAN, dated 25.9.2018 in CRL.

A. NO.1220 OF 2018. The Hon’ble Apex Court in this judgment held that “keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living index today, to do complete justice between the parties, we are inclined to 8 of 10 AS No.153 Of 2017/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

direct that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month to the appellant towards the maintenance amount with effect from January, 2010 and at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month with effect from 1st June, 2018 until further orders” and further considered that “regard must be had to the living standard of the respondent and his family, his past conduct in successfully protracting the disposal of the maintenance petition filed in the year 2003, until 2015, coupled with the fact that a specious and unsubstantiated plea has been taken by him that he is unemployed from 2010, despite the fact that he is highly qualified and an able bodied person; his monthly income while working in Canada in the year 2010 was over Rs.1,77,364/- and that prima facie found that the cause of justice would be subserved if the appellant is granted an interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month”. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted another judgment of our

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Andhra

Pradesh between PARCHURI SAMBASIVA RAO AND OTHERS v. PARCHURI

SRINIVASA RAO AND OTHERS, equivalent citations: 2007 (4) ALD 801, “that the maintenance shall be awarded according to the living stands of the respondent or spouce’s family.”

17.The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that during the cross examination of DW.1 in trial Court, the appellant herein has admitted that he is ready to pay the maintenance as decided by the trial Court on 10.4.2017, but after passing the judgment, the appellant herein has not stand on his own statement which admitted before the trial

Court and preferred appeal against the respondent to harass again. It is clearly shows the intention of the appellant is to avoid the maintenance and violated the judicial order, even, the respondent till today not divorced from the appellant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal and enhance the maintenance as claimed by the respondent before the trial 9 of 10 AS No.153 OF 2017/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

court i.e., Rs.26,000/- per month as the appellant is having liability to maintain his legally wedded wife and in-laws of the appellant, who are senior citizens.

18.Perused on the records. The trial court has erred to appreciate the documentary evidence filed by the appellant herein i.e., Exts.B1 to B3 and partly decreed the suit of the respondent even though the appellant is having sufficient means to pay enhancing maintenance to his legally wedded wife and it is admitted fact that the appellant herein paid

Rs.2,600/- per month to the respondent and during the pendency of enhancement suit also, paying Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent during the pendency of appeal and the respondent is old aged woman and suffering with old age ailments.

19.The law is well settled that a wife, who is unable to maintain herself, is entitled to get maintenance from her husband evenafter divorce obtained by the husband. The marital status of the appellant and the respondent is still existing. The respondent has filed enhancement of maintenance petition and it has enhanced by the learned Senior Civil

Judge, Jangaon, from Rs.2,600/- to Rs.10,000/- basing on fact that the

respondent is a Central Government employee and it is not disputed. The relationship between a wife and husband is such a sacred tie that the husband is expected to save the life of his wife in all circumstances, it is not only when she is beautiful and husband is expected to roam around her beauty and drove her to pit when her beauty vanishes. The husband cannot escape from his liability of providing maintenance to the respondent/wife on the sole ground that the respondent her accordance living separately even able to maintain herself since the husband’s responsibility towards wife to maintain his wife is two fold i.e., legal as well as as a moral.

10 of 10 AS No.153 Of 2017/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

20.Keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high costs of living index today and to the living standard of husband/spouse and their family and having regard to the facts and circumstances, the employment of the appellant and the difficulty of the respondent and her background, this

Court opines that the order of the trial Court is not suffers from any infirmity either in law or on facts and not requires to be interfered by this

Court. However, the trial Court passed enhancement maintenance of

Rs.10,000/- from Rs.2,600/- per month and it appears that the same is reasonable and this Court directing the appellant shall pay the maintenance to the respondent @ Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of judgment in O.S. No.102 of 2015, dated 24.7.2017. The appellant has failed to prove the appeal ground.

21.In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2017 passed in O.S. No.102 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. No costs.

This Court is directing the appellant shall pay the enhanced maintenance to the respondent @ Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of judgment in O.S. No.102 of 2015, dated 24.7.2017, on or before 10th day of every month. The arrears due maintenance shall be deposited within 30 days from this orders.

(Partly typed and partly dictated to the Steno-Typist, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of October, 2018.)

V-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

V-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

1 of 10 MVOP No.801 of 2014/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL – CUM – V-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: II-FTC,

WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

Wednesday, the 24th day of October, 2018.

PRESENT: Sri P. NARAYANA BABU,

Chairman, M.A.C.T-cum- V-Addl.District Judge, II-FTC, Warangal at Jangaon.

M.V.O.P. No.801 OF 2014.

Between:

Gotteti Balakrishna, S/o. Ramulu, Age 20 years, Occ: Private Employee and Milk vendor, R/o. Cheetakodur village, Jangaon mandal, Warangal district. …Petitioner AND

1. Sanaboina Ganesh, S/o. Mallaiah, Age 23 years, Occ: Driver of Tractor bearing No.AP-36-AH-0114, R/o. Ganugupahad village, Jangaon mandal, Warangal district.

2. Bandi @ Banda Siddulu, S/o. Iylaiah, Aged major, Occ: Owner of the crime vehicle and Agriculture, R/o. H.No.10-48, Pembarthi village, Jangaon mandal, Warangal district. …Respondents

This petition is coming on 22.10.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Veereswara Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Nune Rawiindhar, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Tribunal delivered the following :

:: A W A R D ::

This is the claim petition filed under Section 166-A of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 by the petitioner for grant of compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- for the disability sustained by the petitioner due to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

2.The averments of the petition, in brief, are as follows:- 2 of 10 MVOP No.801 of 2014/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

That the petitioner is a private employee and milk vendor and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. That on 17.4.2014 in the evening hours, the petitioner along with his friend Sangi Nithin were proceeding on

Glamour TR vehicle from Ganugapahad to Jangaon, the petitioner was driving the motor cycle cautiously on the way, when they reached near

Akula Bixapathi Paddy field, situated at the outskirts of Ganugapahad village, in the meantime at about 19.00 hours, the driver of tractor bearing No.AP-36-AH-0114 and trailer bearing No.AP-36-AH-0116 i.e., respondent No.1 coming in opposite direction to the motor cycle of the petitioner, drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor cycle, as a result the petitioner and his friend along with motor cycle fell on the road, due to which the petitioner sustained fracture injuries and other grievous injuries, pillion rider-Nithin sustained injuries and the vehicle was damaged and immediately the injured were shifted to Area Hospital, Jangaon, in 108 ambulance for treatment.

That on the same day, the petitioner was shifted to Aditya Hospital,

Uppal, Hyderabad, where CT scan was done and found petitioner’s condition was serious in view of nature of fracture injuries and other injuries viz., severe head injury, multiple skull bone fractures with SDH, blood bleeding from oral and nasals, open compound depressed fracture of left frontal parietal bone with brain herniation from wound and other simple injuries, as such on the advise of Dr. Suresh of Aditya Hospital, the petitioner was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad.

That the petitioner was admitted as inpatient in KIMS Hospital,

Hyderabad vide I.P. No.165735 on 18.4.2014, where Dr. Manas and Dr.

Sujit, Neuro Surgeons observed the petitioner and opined that in view of severe traumatic brain injury sustained by petitioner, the petitioner was 3 of 10 MVOP No.801 of 2014/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

not fit for surgery and requires conservative treatment and advised to shift the petitioner to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.

That the petitioner was admitted as inpatient in Gandhi Hospital vide IP NO.18212 on 18.4.2014, where he was got treatment by Dr. G.

Prakash Rao, Neuro Surgeon, operated was conducted on 10.5.2014 for depressed fracture and FTP SHD and given conservative treatment and the petitioner was discharged on 20.5.2014 with a prescription of medicines to consume and to have periodical medical checkups and treatment. Accordingly, the petitioner underwent follow up treatment, but there was no relief to the petitioner and he developed severe pain and conditions was serious, as such again he was admitted as inpatient in Sri

Raghavendra Multi Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad vide IP No.SRGH-4436 on 3.6.2014 and after conservative treatment, the petitioner was discharged on 12.6.2014.

That due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the above accident, the petitioner suffered with severe headache, bodily pain and could not gain normalcy and he is unable to attend his private employment and milk vending business and became permanently disabled and also sustained huge financial loss. The petitioner’s bright future and life is badly affected and he is leading a precarious and pathetic life in his young age of 20 years. If the petitioner is not met with the accident, he would became a learned and educated persons and could get a job and maintain his family members and due to the accident, the petitioner is put to untold misery and mental agony and which cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money.

That on 18,.4.2014 on the complaint lodged by father of the petitioner, the police Jangaon registered a case in crime No.135/2014 4 of 10 MVOP No.801 of 2014/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

under Sec.337 of IPC and under Sections 180 and 196 of MV Act against the respondent No.1. That the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 while driving the tractor and trailor bearing No.AP-36AH-0114 and 0116 which belongs to the respondent No.2, as such both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

3.The respondent No.2 is the owner of the crime tractor, filed counter submitting that he is the registered owner of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-36-AH-0114 and 0116. He further submitted that he sold away the above tractor to the respondent No.1 under valid documents and possession of the vehicle was also delivered, as such he is no more owner of the said vehicle and third party to this petition and no way concerned to the same. He contended that the petitioner though having sufficient knowledge of sold out of the tractor to the respondent No.1, unnecessarily made him as party to this petition and as such the said liable to be dismissed on a ground of mis-joinder of unnecessary party. He denied the manner of accident, involvement of the petitioner and crime tractor and contended that the allegation of the petitioner is false and incorrect and seeks strict proof of the same.

The respondent No.2 further pleaded that he came to know that there was an agreement between the respondent No.1 (present owner of the crime vehicle) and the petitioner with regard to the accident and the respondent No.1 also paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards full and final satisfaction of claim of the petitioner and the petitioner also agreed the same and accepted not to raise any future claim against the respondent No.1 or against him, but to squeeze excess amount, the petitioner filed this petition only to harass them. He further contended that the petitioner obtained attachment order vide IA No.738 of 2014 in 5 of 10 MVOP No.801 of 2014/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

the above OP and the same is unnecessary proceedings since the respondent No.2 is not at all concerned to the vehicle and prayed to dismiss the petition against him.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been settled for trial:

i) Whether the accident occurred on 17.4.2014 was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-36AH- 0114 and AP-36AH-0116?

ii)Whether the policy was in force and valid on the date of accident?

iii)Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent?

iv)To what relief?

5.To prove his case, the claimant examined his father Goteti Ramulu as PW.1 and got documents marked as Exts.A1 to A11. In rebuttal, the respondent No.2 himself examined as RW.1 and got documents marked as

Exts.B1 to Ex.B3.

6.There was no representation for petitioner, as such petitioner’s arguments treated as heard. Heard the arguments of the respondent’s counsel. Perused the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.

7.Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR in Crime No.135 of 2014 with complaint of police station Jangaon, dated 18.4.2014, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of Remand report in crime No.135 of 2014 of police station Jangaon,

dated 12.5.2014, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of petition under Sec.451 of

Cr.P.C., filed by the respondent No.2 for interim custody of crime vehicle tractor, dated 10.6.2014, Ex.A4 is Medical card of Aditya Hospital un- dated, Hyderabad Ex.A5 is discharge card issued by Krishna Institute of

Medical Science, Hyderabad with date of admitted and discharge on 18- 04-2014 receipts dt.18.4.2014, Ex.A6 is the outpatient ticket prescription 6 of 10 MVOP No.801 of 2014/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

card dt.13.4.2014, Ex.A7 is Discharge card of Gandhi Hospital with enclosures dt.29.5.2014, Ex.A8 is Prescriptions of Raghavendra Hospital,

Hyderabad, dt.13.6.2014 and 12.6.2014, Ex.A9 is Detailed final bill of

Raghavendra Hospital, Hyderabad, dt.12.6.2014, Ex.A10 is reports of

Lucid Medical Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd., dt.4.6.2014 and Ex.A11 is medical bills (27 in number), dated 4.5.2014 to 3.6.2014.

8.ISSUES No.1 to 3: To prove the case, the father of the claimant was examined as PW.1 on behalf of the claimant and he filed his chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination as PW.1. PW.1 is deposing evidence on behalf of his son, who is injured and major and that on 17.4.2014 while he was at Agricultural Market Committee, Jangaon, he came to know that his son i.e., G. Balakrishna met with accident along with his friend Sangi

Nithin, who drove the motor cycle, through one Ravi, as such his son (claimant/petitioner herein) and his friend were shifted to Jangaon Area

Hospital. Immediately, he rushed to Area Hospital, Jangaon, where the doctors informed him that his son/claimant was shifted to another hospital at Hyderabad for better treatment as his condition was serious. On that,

PW.1 went to Aditya Hospital, Uppal and he found his son has underwent treatment for two hours and on the advise of the doctors, subsequently claimant was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. On the same day, his son/claimant was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, and treated for one day and on the advise of the doctors of KIMS Hospital, the claimant was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad and he has taken treatment for four months. Thereafter, on the advise of the doctors of Gandhi Hospital, the claimant was admitted in Raghavendra Hospital, Hyderabad, for better treatment for 8 days. Again as per the advise of the Raghavendra

Hospital, Hyderabad, the claimant was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for removing tube that was erected by the Gandhi Hospital.

7 of 10 MVOP No.801 of 2014/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

9.PW.1 further deposed that he has spent huge amounts to save the life of the claimant in such process and PW.1 has no other thought like to collect medical bills, doctor fee certificates, lab charges, other bills and other material for future transaction, due to which most of the bills were not collected as he is working as hamali in Agricultural Market Committee being an illiterate person and PW.1 not preserved all bills in respect of treatment of the claimant. PW.1 deposed that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence of driver of tractor only and his son/claimant sustained multiple injuries to his head, brain and all over his body and till day he was not returned to normal life and there is no hope or scope for future recovery to lead normal life, as such the claimant’s (son of PW.1) valuable youth and future life was spoiled and without aid and assistance of any elder member, the claimant cannot discharge his day to day life activities and prayed this Hon’ble Court to allow the petition in order to safe guard the compensation amount in the interest of justice and got documents marked as Exts.A1 to A11.

10.On the other hand, the respondent No.2 himself examined as RW.1 and got marked Exts.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 is original Sale agreement of tractor

dated 26.8.2013, Ex.B2 is cash receipt dt.18.9.2013 and Ex.B3 is original

compromise Memorandum regarding the accident dated 17.6.2014.

11.During the cross examination of PW.1, it is revealed that PW.1 is third party to the petition and he know the details and facts of the case and he is not eye witness to accident. PW.1 admitted in his cross examination that the signature on chief affidavit of PW.1 is not belonging to him and he also admitted that he does not know the contents of chief affidavit of PW.1, but his chief affidavit is prepared by his counsel on his narration. PW.1 further admitted that the signature on claim petition is not his (PW.1’s) and he cannot say who signed on it. PW.1 further 8 of 10 MVOP No.801 of 2014/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

admitted that he has not filed any GPA petition to represent on behalf of the claimant and he also not obtained permission from this Tribunal to represent on behalf of the claimant. Further, PW.1 simply denied that he has not mentioned the crime vehicle number and bike number involved in the accident in his chief affidavit, whereas he has not mentioned the crime vehicle number or bike number in chief affidavit of PW.1. PW.1 further admitted that he does not know the contents in Ex.A1 FIR in crime No.135 of 2014 with complaint of Police Station Jangaon, dated 18.4.2018. PW.1 further admitted that he has not made owner of the bike as party to this case as he does not know the details of owner of bike. PW.1 further admitted that he is having white ration card and Rajiv Arogyasri card and his son/claimant was a student at the time of accident. PW.1 further voluntarily admitted that his son/claimant has underwent surgery in KIMS and Raghavendra Hospital and the claimant has got operations/surgery in

Gandhi Hospital. PW.1 simply denied that he has obtained the medical bills from KIMS Hospital twice in the same day and he has filed some undated medical bills under Ex.A11. Further, PW.1 admitted that he has filed the claim petition against the respondent No.1 only and not others.

Further, PW.1 admitted that he has made wrong calculation in claim petition. During the cross examination, PW.1 denied that he has not filed disability certificate of the claimant.

12.During further cross examination, PW.1 admitted that he is not an eye witness to the accident and he also not made Nithin Singvi as party to this petition and he also know one Kukatla Iylaiah, who is his brother-in- law and he also know R. Balaswamy. PW.1 simply denied that on 17.6.2014 himself and his brother-in-law Kuktla Ilaiah, R. Balaswamy along with some other elders held a panchayat at Ganugupadu village and settled the matter for Rs.1,00,000/- on the incident of the accident and 9 of 10 MVOP No.801 of 2014/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

the respondent paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the claimant on the mercy ground even the respondent not found any guilty and it was reduced into writing on judicial stamp paper in the presence of panchayat elders. Further, PW.1 denied that he has foisted a false claim against the respondents to extract more money from them. PW.1 further admitted that he has not filed any mental disability certificate of the claimant as he is unfit to depose the evidence.

13.The PW-1 admitted in open court that he has not signed on his chief examination of affidavit and he does not know the fact of initial. Hence the examination in chief affidavit is null and void and there is no evidence at all for claimant. Hence the petition is liable for dismiss.

14.During the pendency of this claim petition, the petitioner obtained property attachment order vide I.A. No.738/2014 dated 22/09/2014 allegedly said attached property is belonging to Respondent No.2 but said properties are belonging to third parties as on date of attachment made by the field assistant of the court, by that time my predecessor has not observed the Encumbrance certificate filed by the petitioner and there was no ownership acquired by the Respondents. The petitioner has played fraud before the court and obtained said oder. Hence the IA

No.738/2014 dated 22-09-2014 is vacated.

15.The injured is not examined in this court even though he is major.

All the documents were created and fabricated one for the purpose of this claim and not corroborated to claim petition. As seen the document Ex.A6 is out patient ticket of claimant shows that he has taken treatment from

Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad on 13-04-2014 for depressed fracture with

CSF hygene and the said prescription clearly shows the conduct of the claimant. The petitioner has not approached court with clean hands and 10 of 10 MVOP No.801 of 2014/V-ADJ, Jangaon.

the petitioner failed to prove his claims. Hence petition is liable for dismissal.

16.In the result,the petition is dismissed.

(Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Steno-Typist, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 24th day of October,2018.)

CHAIRMAN,

M.A.C.T.-CUM-V-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:

PW.1 Goteti Ramulu

For Respondents:

RW.1 Sanaboina Ganesh

:EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR in crime No.135 of 2014 with complaint of PS Jangaon, dated 18.4.2014. Ex.A2 certified copy of Remand report crime No.135/2014 of PS Jangaon, dt.12.5.2014. Ex.A3 certified copy of Petition under Sec.451 Cr.P.C., filed by respondent dt.10.6.2014. Ex.A4 Prescription of Aditya Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A5 Discharge card of KIMS, Hyderabad, with receipts dt.18.4.2014. Ex.A6 Outpatient Ticket card dt.13.4.2014. Ex.A7 Discharge card of Gandhi Hospital with Enclosures dt.29.5.2014. Ex.A8 Prescriptions of Raghavendra Hospital, Hyderabad, dt.3.6.2014 and 12.6.2014. Ex.A9 Detailed Final bill of Raghavendra Hospital, Hyderabad, dt.12.6.2014. Ex.A10 Reports of Lucid Medical Diagnostics Pvt., Ltd., dt.4.6.2014. Ex.A11 Medical bills (27 in no.) dt.4.5.2014 to 3.6.2014.

For Respondents:

Ex.B1 Original Sale agreement of Tractor dt.26.8.2013. Ex.B2 Cash receipt dt.18.9.2013. Ex.B3 Original compromise Memorandum regarding to the accident dt.17.6.2014.

CHAIRMAN,

M.A.C.T.-CUM-V-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

1 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.39 of 2017/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

IN THE COURT OF THE V-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

Tuesday, the 6th day of August, 2019.

PRESENT: Sri P. NARAYANA BABU,

V-Addl. Sessions Judge, II-FTC, Warangal at Jangaon.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.39 OF 2017.

1.From what Court this appeal is :Judicial First Class Magistrate, preferred Jangaon.

2.Number of the case in that Court :C.C. No.236 of 2013

3.Name and description of the :Chiluka Sathaiah, S/o. Muthaiah, appellantAged 37 years, Occ: Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP-25T-6800, R/o. Maddur village and mandal, Warangal district.

4.Name and description of the:The State of Telangana, through respondentthe Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Raghunathpalli.

5.The sentence and law under which :Convicted under Section 255 (2) it was passedCr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine shall udnergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence udner Section 304-A of IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.800/- for the offence under Section 338 of IPC, in default of payment of fine shallundergosimple imprisonment for a period of three months.

6.Whether confirmed, modified or:Reversed. reversed; and if modified the modification

7.Counsel for Appellant :Sri G. Ratna Reddy, Advocate.

8.Counsel for Respondent:Smt. P. Urvashi, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

PresentationFilingNotice issuedBail bond, ifAppellantHearingOrder by the Courtthe appellantordered to be to appearis let out onappear bail 30.03.201730.03.201707.04.2017--12.05.201726.07.201906.08.2019 2 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.39 of 2017/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

This Criminal Appeal is coming on 26.07.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence Sri G. Ratna Reddy, Advocate for the appellant/accused and Smt. P. Urvashi, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/complainant and after hearing the arguments of both the sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is an appeal preferred against the judgment of the Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, passed in Calender Case No.236 of 2013

on 24.3.2017 convicting the appellant/accused under Section 255 (2)

Cr.P.C., for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under

Section 304-A of IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.800/- for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 21.6.2013 at about 9.00

A.M., LW.1-Suram Yadagiri lodged a written complaint before the police

Raghunathpalli stating that on 20.6.2013 his brother Suram Srinivas along with his wife Suram Radha and his friend Bharath Babu went to

Hyderabad in their Car bearing No.AP-36R-0986 and after dropping their son Suram Raju in the college at Hyderabad, while returning to

Warangal, on the way after crossing Raghunathpally village at about 10.50 P.M., the front wheel of the car was punctured, due to which his brother Srinivas got down from the Car, while replacing the wheel, the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP-25T-6800 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, proceeding from Hanamkonda towards Jangaon side, and ran over on his brother, due to which his 3 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.39 of 2017/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

brother’s head and waist were crushed and he died on the spot. Further it is stated in the complaint by LW.1-Suram Yadagiri that in the said accident, his sister-in-law Radha and Bharath Babu also sustained severe injuries and they were shifted to Area Hospital, Jangaon. On reaching the Hospital, they found the dead body of his brother in the mortuary and on enquiry, he came to know that the driver of Lorry namely Chiluka

Sathaiah and requested take necessary action against him. Basing on the said complaint, the police Raghunathpalli registered a case in crime

No.140 of 2013 under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC and after investigation filed charge sheet against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC.

3.On appearance of the appellant/accused before the trial Court, the copies of documents were furnished to him under Sec.207 Cr.P.C., he was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 of IPC, read over and explained and the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The prosecution examined Pws.1 to 11 and got marked Exts.P1 to

P.10.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant/accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating evidence deposed against him by the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

6.Upon hearing the arguments on both sides, the learned Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, considered the point for determination is

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A and 338 of IPC?” 4 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.39 of 2017/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

7.The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence convicted the appellant/accused as mentioned supra. Hence this appeal.

8.In grounds of appeal, it is contended that the impugned judgment

dated 24.3.2017 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon,

in C.C. No.236/2013 is erroneous and the trial Judge ought to have acquitted the appellant/accused since the respondent miserably failed to bring guilt of the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses do not corroborate with each other and there are material contradictions and omissions in their evidence. The lower Court has not taken into the above contradictions and omissions into consideration and believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which is contrary to law. There is no evidence on record that the appellant/accused has driven the crime vehicle in negligent manner and prayed to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant/accused.

9.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

10.Now the points for consideration of this Appellate Court are:

i.Whether the judgment in C.C. No.236/2013 dated

24.3.2017 passed by the Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Jangaon is erroneous in facts and law

and whether the same is liable to be set aside?

ii.Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all

reasonable doubt the guilt of the

appellant/accused for the offences punishable

under Sections 304-A, 338 of the Indian Penal

Code?

11.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that it is reiteration of appeal grounds and prayed to set aside the judgment in 5 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.39 of 2017/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

C.C. No.236/2013, dated 24.3.2017 passed by the learned Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Jangaon.

12.On the other hand, the respondent/Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted the arguments that there is no infirmity committed by the trial Court and the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubt by examining Pws.1 to 10. Hence, prayed

before this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the judgment of

the trial Court.

13. POINTS: Perused of the oral arguments, judgment, oral and documentary evidence. It is established that the appellant/accused was involved in crime No.140/2013 for the offences under Sections 338, 304- of IPC. The investigation agency established before the Trial Court that the guilty of the appellant/accused for the offence under Sec.338 and 304-A of the IPC. It is no dispute that the defacto-complainant Suram

Yadagiri, S/o. Lingaiah was lodged the complaint on 21.6.2013 under

Ex.P8. During the pendency of the trial, the defacto-complainant died.

Hence his evidence was closed on 27.7.2015. The learned Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Jangaon, comes to conclusion that the Ex.P8 established that the brother of the defacto-complainant namely Suram

Srinivas, aged 38 years, Suram Radha (PW.3) and PW.8 met with accident on 20.6.2013 at about 22.50 hours at Raghunathpalli near

Police Station while they were stopped their vehicle on the road due to tyre puncture; by that time, the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-25T-6800 coming from Hanamkonda to Hyderabadf side and hit the above persons and the brother of the defacto-complainant namely Suram Srinivas died on the spot and PW.3 and PW.8 sustained grievous injuries.

6 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.39 of 2017/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

14.The Ex.P8 does not disclose the name of the driver of the crime vehicle and said accident occurred at about 9.00 P.M., in the night time.

As per Ex.P8, the complaint was lodged by the defacto-complainant on 21.6.2013 at about 09.00 hours and it is revealed that the defacto- complainant came to know the name of the driver as Chiluka Sathaiah, resident of Maddur. Where as in Ex.P8 itself disclosed that the defacto- complainant was not eye witness and the source of knowledge and name of the driver of crime vehicle Sathaiah does not disclosed. Ex.P8 itself established that the defacto-complainant came to know the name of the driver of the crime lorry at Mortuary of Area Hospital, Jangaon, but he did not disclose the name of the said persons. Further, Ex.P8 does not disclosed any features, name and physical characteristics of the driver of the crime vehicle.

15.The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, convicted the appellant/accused on the testimony of PW.8 and PW.8 that PW.3 and

PW.8, who are the injured in the said accident and they were identified the driver at the time of recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. There is no prior acquaintance of PW.3 or PW.8 with the appellant/accused prior to the occurrence of the accident and the said accident was occurred in the night hours at about 9.00 P.M. Perused of the PW.3 and PW.8 evidence, they did not state before the Court that there was any street lights on the road and they also failed to disclose in their chief examination the scene of offence in their testimony. Further

PW.3 admitted that she does not know the name of the accused and crime lorry number as she was injured in the said accident. The learned

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, has elaborated the testimony of

PW.3 during the appreciation of her evidence. Hence, the learned 7 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.39 of 2017/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, has improved the case of the prosecution without any oral incriminating evidence of PW.3.

16.Further the testimony of PW.8, who is another injured in the same accident, reveals that “he knows Pws.1 to 5 and he admitted that he was proceeding from Hyderabad to Warangal along with the deceased-

Srinivas and his wife/PW.3 in Alto Car, by that time when they reached

Raghunathpalli, at about 10.30 P.M., car got punctured. During that time, a lorry came towards on them and dashed their Alto car, due to which the deceased-Srinivas died on the spot and his both legs were broken. Later, the incident was informed to police by LW.1. The incident occurred due to negligence of the lorry driver”. PW.8 also does not disclose the particulars of name and features of the driver of the lorry and he also not disclosed the lorry number before the Court. Pws.3 and 8 are business persons. They have very vigilent in every particulars to identify the character and features of the vehicle, persons and everything, but the testimony of Pws.3 and 8 does not establish about the identification of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle. But the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, improved the case of the prosecution on her own accordance.

17.As per the prosecution, Ex.P8 FIR and oral evidence of Pws.3 and 8, the accident occurred near to the Police Station of Raghunathpally, but no one informed about the accident to the police immediately after the accident and LW.1-defacto-complainant lodged the complaint on the next day at about 9.00 hours. Charge sheet established that the accused was arrested on 22.6.2013 and sent to judicial custody. Ex.P8 was received by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, on 22.6.2013 at about 11.00 A.M., along with remand report of accused, but 8 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.39 of 2017/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

the prosecution has failed to explain for the delay in sending the FIR to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Jangaon, on the same day of registration of FIR on 21.6.2013. The day 21.6.2013 calender day was

Friday and the accident took place on 20.6.2013 Thursday. Ex.P8 itself raises doubt that Ex.P8 lodged after three days of the accident.

18.Pws.1 and 2 are the circumstantial witnesses, Pws.4 and 5 are panchas for inquest report, Pws.6 and 7 are panchas for crime details form and Pws.9 and 10 are the Medical Officers (doctors). The prosecution has failed to examine independent witnesses. The

Investigating Officer recorded the statement of PW.3 under Section 161

Cr.P.C., on 21.6.2013. But the Investigating Officer had failed to mention at which place he examined PW.3 and recorded her statement. The 161

Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 reveals that some unknown have informed the accident to 108 ambulance and they were shifted to Area Hospital,

Jangaon. The 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pws.3 and 8 does not disclose the name of the driver of the crime vehicle and they did not state the features of the driver in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. It is clearly established that Pws.3 and 8 does not seen the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and it is also highly impossible to recognize or identify any person while they were suffering from injuries and pain at the sudden unexpected accident and identification of person unknown after lapse of 3 to 5 years without test identification parade is doubt. Hence the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

19.The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of

Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, held in Criminal Revision

Petition No.640 of 2017 (Division Bench) in between TATA ARJUNA 9 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.39 of 2017/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

RAO, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, that “it is not in dispute that the appellant was a stranger to Pws.2 and 3. The onlyh descriptive particular given by Pws.2 and 3 in their Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statement is that the asailant was diminutive in stature. They gave evidence in the Court two years after the alleged incident. It is not possible for a human being to identify a stranger after lapse of a considerable time. In our opinion, two years is too long a time for a person to identify a stranger with certainty. The prosecution has not made any effort to conduct identification parade for Pws.2 and 3 to identify the appellant. In NOORAHAMMAD AND OTHERS v. STATEMENT

OF KARNATAKA, wherein identification parade of the accused who are strangers to the witnesses was not conducted by the police and the dock identification by the witnesses was made two years after the incident, the Supreme Court observed as under:

“In view of the fact that the FIR was registered against unknown persons and even description of the accused was not mentioned, a test identification parade (TIP) ought to have been conducted so as to inspire confidence about the identity of the assailants. However, the prosecution has not rendered any explanation as to why the said TIP was not conducted. In such circumstances, dock identification by the witnesses, after two years from the incident, was rightly not relied upon by the trial Court.”

20. The above citation is applicable to this case. I am agreed with the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. In the present case also, Pws.3 and 8 were strangers to the appellant/accused and they have identified the appellant/accused before the Court during recording their evidence on 3.3.2016 and 9.2.2017 respectively i.e., after 3 and 4 years. Moreover Ex.P8 FIR was registered against the driver of lorry 10 of 10 Crl. Appeal No.39 of 2017/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

without mentioning the name and descriptive particulars. It is highly impossible to identify being a human being to identify any stranger after lapse of 3 years and 4 years. Hence, the identification of the appellant/accused before the trial Court is doubtful without conducting of test identification parade and benefit of doubt goes to accused.

Hence, this Court opined that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of the appellant/accused and the judgment in C.C. No.236/2013,

dated 24.3.2017 is suffering from infirmity on facts and law and hence

the same is liable to be set aside.

21. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment in C.C. No.236/2013, dated 24.3.2017 passed by the learned Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Jangaon and the appellant/accused is acquitted

under Section 386 (b) (i) of Cr.P.C., for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant/accused. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused shall remain in force for a period of six months during the revision period.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 6th day of August, 2019.)

V-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

1 of 10 CMA No.45 of 2016 /V-ADJC, Jangaon.

IN THE COURT OF THE V-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

Wednesday, the 31st day of July, 2019.

PRESENT: Sri P. NARAYANA BABU,

V-Addl. District Judge, II-FTC, Warangal at Jangaon.

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.45 OF 2016.

Between:

Udumala Bhasker Reddy, S/o. Late Sri Kaspa Reddy, Aged 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Cherial village and mandal, Warangal district. …Appellant/petitioner AND

1. Poloju Pattabi Ramulu, S/o. Brahmanandam, Aged 48 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. Cherial village and mandal, Warangal district.

2. Poloju Srihari, S/o. Brahmanandam, Aged 45 years, Occ: Mechanic, R/o. Cherial village and mandal, Warangal district.

3. Poloju Srinivas, S/o. Late Sudarshanam, Aged 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.17-82, Cherial village and mandal, Warangal district.

4. Yerroju Aruna, W/o. Bhasker, Aged 42 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.13-1, Sripuri colony, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad-47. …Respondents/respondents

Aggrieved by the Order dated 6.5.2016 passed in I.A. No.80 of 2016 in Original Suit No.48 of 2016 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon.

Between: Udumala Bhasker Reddy …Petitioner/Plaintif

AND

1. Poloju Pattabi Ramulu

2. Poloju Srihari

3. Poloju Srinivas

4. Yerroju Aruna …Respondents/Defendants

This CMA is coming on 25.07.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence Sri T. Kirit Reddy, Counsel for the appellant and Sri N. Ram Mohan Reddy, Counsel for the respondents and after hearing the 2 of 10 CMA No.45 of 2016 /V-ADJC, Jangaon.

arguments and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

:: ORDER ::

(1)This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, passed in I.A. No.80 of 2016 in

Original Suit No.48 of 2016, dated 06.05.2016.

(2)That the appellant herein is the petitioner/plaintiff in I.A. No.80 of 2016 in Original Suit No.48 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Jangaon. The appellant herein filed an application under Order

XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C., before the Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Jangaon, to grant ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property admeasuring 330 square yards vide house plot No.14 and 15 in survey No.207/G, 207/H, 207/F and 207/I situated at Cherial village and mandal of Warangal district.

(3)For the sake of convenience, both the parties to this appeal are referred to as arrayed in the trial Court.

(4)The contention of the appellant is that the appellant is the owner and possessor of the petition schedule property, acquired the same by way of purchased from erstwhile owners and possessors under registered sale deed bearing document No.4320/2013 dated 3.10.2013 and since then he is inducted into physical possession. That the appellant also obtained Grampanchayat permission for constructing RCC building by paying requisite fees and gathered the construction material for constructing the building. While so, on 21.2.2016 the respondents herein, who are not having any manner of right, title and tried to 3 of 10 CMA No.45 of 2016 /V-ADJC, Jangaon.

interfere into the peaceful possession and causing obstruction for his work. Hence the above petition was filed.

(5)On the other hand, the respondents/defendants filed counter denying the title as well as possession of the appellant/petitioner over the petition schedule property. That the respondents filed the suit

No.101/2013 and 102/2013 and also filed Execution Petitions No.36/2013 and 37/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Jangaon, against the vendors of the petitioner, but the petitioner i.e., appellant herein, suppressed the fact of pending of the said suits against his vendors. The vendors of the petitioner were not having any title over the petition schedule property and the respondents herein filed the suits

before the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, for declaration of title and

consequential injunction against the vendors of the petitioner with regard to the subject matter of the petition schedule property. That the vendors colluded with the petitioner and created the fictitious document bearing No.4320/2013. That the suit No.101/2013 and 102/2013 ex- parte order was passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon and after obtaining the ex-parte order against the vendors of the petitioner, filed

Execution Petitions against the vendors of the petitioner. Further submitted that the respondents herein i.e., defendants in the main suit also got published a general notice in Andhra Jyothi daily news paper on 16.12.2012 cautioning the general public not to enter any sale transaction with the vendors of the petitioner in respect of the suit schedule land in O.S. No.101/2013 and 102/2013. That the petitioner and his vendors are close relatives and the petitioner approached this

Court by suppressing the material facts and obtained ad-interim injunction order, as such the petitioner is not entitled to any sort of injunction.

4 of 10 CMA No.45 of 2016 /V-ADJC, Jangaon.

(6)Basing on the pleadings and available documents before the trial

Court, the lower Court taken the point for consideration was that,

“whether there are justifiable grounds for granting interim

injunction, pending disposal of the suit, as prayed for?” (7)During the arguments, the lower Court got Exts.P1 to P9 on behalf of the petitioner and Exts.R1 to R11 marked on behalf of the respondents. After appreciating the oral arguments and documentary evidence, the lower Court dismissed the petition by vacating ad-interim injunction dated 01.03.2016. Aggrieved by the order of the learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, the petitioner preferred the appeal

before this Court. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(8)Now the points for consideration of this Court are:

i.Whether the order of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Jangaon, in I.A. No.80/2016 in O.S.

No.48/2016, dated 06.05.2016, is sufering from

any infirmity either on facts or on law, and

whether the same is liable to be set aside?

ii.To what relief?

(9) The counsel for the appellant argued and the same is reiteration of appeal grounds. He further argued and submitted that the suit schedule property is the land in survey Numbers 207/G, 207/H, 207/F and 207/I an extent of 330. sq. yards vide house plots No.14 and 15 situated at Cherial village and mandal. The counsel for the appellant categorically admitted that the respondents No.3 and 4 herein were filed the suits No.101/2013 and 102/2013 against the vendors of the appellant for declaration of title and the same was decreed ex-parte under Ex.R1. That Exts.P1 to P9 and the particulars of the petition schedule property, which is house site an extent of 165 and 165 sq.

5 of 10 CMA No.45 of 2016 /V-ADJC, Jangaon.

yards each in plot No.14 and 15 in survey No.207/G, 207/H, 207/F and 207/I in Cherial village.

(10) On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents argued that there is nothing wrong committed by the trial Court and passed order on merits.

(11) POINTS: Ex.P1 is the registered sale deed, it is established that the petitioner purchased the petition schedule property from Udumula

Marreddy, Udumula Inna Reddy, Udumula Bal Reddy and Udumula

Thomas Reddy, open plot NO.14, 15 and 30 an extent of 481.2 sq. yards in survey numbers 207/G, 207/H, 207/F and 207/I situated at Cherial village through registered sale deed No.4320 of 2013, dated 3.10.2013.

Ex.P2 is the Construction Permission letter issued by the

Grampanchayat, Cherial vide Rc. No.153/2015, dated 27.12.2015 given for construction in plot No.14 and 15 only. Ex.P2 shows that the extent of plot is 275..91 sq. meters and permitted to construction is 125.41 + 125.41 sq. meters. The schedule of property shows that North: Open site of vendors, South: Plot No.13, East: 21 feet width road and West:

Road leading from Cherial to Siddipet. Ex.P3 is the Receipt for betterment charges dated 27.12.2015 issued by the Grampanchayat,

Cherial. Ex.P4 is the Statement of Encumbrance on property in respect of plots No.14, 15 and 30 in survey numbers 207/G, 207/H, 207/F and 207/I of Cherial, an extent of 481.2 sq. yards bounded by North: Full,

South: Full, East: Full and West: Full. Ex.P5 is the Pahani Patrika for the year 2015 in survey No.207/F. Ex.P5 IS Pahani Patrika establishes that the land in survey No.207/F is an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas and the vendor of the petitioner is shown as pattedar and possessor of the said land. Ex.P6 is the Pahani patrika for the year 2015 (Fasli 1425), 6 of 10 CMA No.45 of 2016 /V-ADJC, Jangaon.

establishes that the land in survey No.207/G is an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas and the vendor of the petitioner i.e., Udumula Mar Reddy, S/o.

Rayapu Reddy is shown as pattedar and possessor of the said land.

Ex.P7 is the Pahani patrika for the year 2015 for the land in survey

No.207/H, establishes that the land in survey No.207/H is an extent of

Ac.0-20 guntas and the vendor of the petitioner i.e., Udumula Inna

Reddy is shown as pattedar and possessor of the said land. Ex.P8 is the

Pahani patrika for the Fasli year 1425, establishes that the land in survey No.207/I is an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas and the vendor of the petitioner i.e., Udumula Thomas Reddy, S/o. Rayapu Reddy is shown as pattedar and possessor of the said land. Ex.P9 is the Letter in Rc.

No.E/443/2011, dated 30.3.2011 issued by the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Jangaon, to the Sub Registrar for confirmation certificate for the land in survey No.207/F to 207/I an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas. Ex.P9 established that the Tahsildar, Cherial submitted report after due legal enquiry and verification of the revenue records, has recommended for issue of No Objection certificate in respect of the land in survey No.207 an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas.

(12) Ex.R1 is the certified copy of Judgment in Original Suit

No.101/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. Ex.R2 is the decree in Original Suit No.101/2013. Ex.R3 is the docket order dated 9.3.2016 in Original Suit No.101/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge,

Jangaon. Ex.R4 is the copy of Caveat filed by the vendors of the petitioners Udumula Mar Reddy and others against the respondents No.3 and 4 herein before the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. Ex.R5 is the office copy of caveat petition filed before the Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon by the vendors of the petitioner against the respondent No.3-Srinivas for the land in survey No.207/F to I an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas situated at 7 of 10 CMA No.45 of 2016 /V-ADJC, Jangaon.

Cherial village. Ex.R6 is the office copy of caveat filed before the Senior

Civil Judge, Jangaon, by the vendors of the petitioner against the

respondent No.3 herein Srinivas and nine others for the land in survey

No.207/F to I of Cherial village. Ex.R7 is the office copy of caveat filed by the vendors of the petitioner against the respondent No.3 herein and three others. Ex.R8 is the paper publication in Andhra Jyothi dated 16.12.2012 establishes that the respondent No.3 herein and three others having an extent of land Ac.1.23 guntas, Ac.0.06 guntas, Ac.0.12 guntas, having residential plots in survey No.207/A, 207/D, 207/D1, 207/E, which was acquired by inheritance. It shows that the said property boundaries shown as East: T. Chandramouli, West: Road, North: Narra Iylaiah and

South: Y. Arogya Reddy. Publication issued by Sri B. Manohar, Advocate.

Ex.R9 is the docket order dated 3.7.2015 in I.A. No.694/2014 in O.S.

No.101/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. Ex.R10 is the docket order dated 3.7.2015 in I.A. No.692/2014 in O.S. No.102/2013.

Exts.R9 and R10 established that ex-parte decre dated 28.7.2014 is set aside on payment of costs of Rs.200/- on 13.7.2015, failing which ex- parte decree hold good. Further Exts.R9 and R10 established that the vendors of the petitioner/appellant filed the petition for set aside the order and decree dated 28.7.2014 in O.S. No.101/2013 and suit

No.101/2013 and 102/2013 are restored. Ex.R11 is the location map vide file No.E/1341/2013 issued by the Tahsildar, Cherial mandal. Ex.R11 established that the location map shown under blue colour is comes under the ceiling land and pink colour land shown as nalla conversion area in survey No.207 an extent of Ac.0.16 guntas which was prepared by Mandal Surveyor, Cherial. Further Ex.R11 established that the ceiling land is shown an extent of Acs.5.36 guntas and the land in survey

No.207 shown as U. Mar Reddy an extent of Ac.0.16 guntas only. Ex.R11 8 of 10 CMA No.45 of 2016 /V-ADJC, Jangaon.

contains four sheets vide file No.E/1339/2013, E/1342/2013,

E/1340/2013 and remaining three documents shown that the land in survey No.207 an extent of Ac.0.16 guntas in each in favour of U. Bal

Reddy, U. Inna Reddy, U. Thomas Reddy.

(13) The affidavit of the petitioner in I.A. No.80 of 2016 filed by the petitioner established that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of house plot No.14 and 15 an extent of 330 sq. yards only out of land in survey No.207/G, 207/H, 207/F, 207/I situated at Cherial village and mandal and the same is purchased vide registered sale deed under

Ex.P1. Ex.P1 itself established that the total extent is 481.2 sq. yards.

The plot No.14 an extent of 165 sq. yards and plot No.165 an extent of 165 sq. yards in combined schedule and plot No.30 an extent of 151.2 sq. yards in survey No.207/G, H, F and 207/I. The petitioner admitted that the suit No.101/2013 and 102/2013 were filed by the respondents

No.3 and 4 against the vendors of the petitioner for declaration and recovery of possession and the petition schedule property in survey

No.207/E an extent of Ac.0.12 guntas and Ac.0.06 guntas land in survey

No.207/D in O.S. No.102/2013, which are different lands in survey

No.207 under different sub divisions also. The same suits are pending

before the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. The present suit No.48/2016 filed

on 01.3.2016 before the Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon in the present case suit, whereas O.S. No.101/2013 and 102/2013 filed before the Senior

Civil Judge, Jangaon, on 12.8.2013 under Ex.R2. It is clearly established

that the present petition and the suit No.48/2016 are filed after the institution of O.S. No.101 of 2013 and 102/2013. It is clearly established that the present suit No.48/2016 comes under the res-subjudis under

Section 10 of the C.P.C.

9 of 10 CMA No.45 of 2016 /V-ADJC, Jangaon.

(14) Section 10 of the C.P.C., laid as – No Court shall proceed with trial of any suit in which a matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in same or any other

Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief of claimed, or in any

Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by Central

Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.

(15) The whole of the subject matter in both the suites i.e., O.S. No.48 of 2016 and O.S. No.101/2013 and 102/2013 are identical and O.S.

No.101/2013 and O.S. No.102/2013 are pending for disposal before the

Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. Hence, the principles are absolutely applies

to this suit.

(16) Further the petitioner filed the suit for simplicitor injunction against the respondents/defendants and there is a cloud of title in between the petitioner/plaintiff and the defendants. Further the appellant/petitioner claiming the suit land in survey No.207/F to 207/I an extent of 330 sq.

yards only but Ex.P1 shows that 481.2 sq. yards. Ex.P2 is the construction permission granted by the Grampanchayat, Cherial to construct the house/building an extent of 275.91 sq. meters land in survey No.207/G, 207/H, 207/F and 207/I in plot No.14 and 15. Ex.P4 is not supporting with the schedule boundaries of the petition schedule property. Exts.P5 to P8 Pahani patrikas shows the petition schedule property is patta agricultural land till 2015 year respectively an extent of

Ac.0.20 guntas.

(17) During the pendency of the appeal, the counsel for the appellant filed petition along with enlisted documents i.e., proceedings 10 of 10 CMA No.45 of 2016 /V-ADJC, Jangaon.

No.E/443/2011, dated 30.3.2011, E/1339/2013, E/1340/2013,

E/1341/2013 and E/1342/2013 in respect of the land in survey No.207 in respect of land Ac.0.20 guntas each in sub divisions No.207/F to 207/I of

Cherial village. But this appellate Court has received the same and it has not marked as it will be decided by the trial Court only. The nature of the petition is interim injunction restraining the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petition schedule property.

Hence, to decide the matter, this appellate Court is inclined to remand back the appeal to trial Court for fresh consideration.

(18) For the foregoing discussion, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of remitting back the I.A. No.80 of 2016 in O.S. No.48/2016 to the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, with a direction to receive additional evidence, if any, adduced by both the parties and to dispose of the petition on merits as a fresh matter.

(19) In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of remitting back the I.A. No.80 of 2016 in O.S. No.48/2016 to the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, dated 6.05.2016, with a direction to receive additional evidence, if any, adduced by both the parties and to dispose of the petition on merits as a fresh matter. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, are pending, same shall stand closed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of July, 2019.)

V-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

V-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.