Sri P.S.P. Chiranjeevi Rao

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC-I) AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 12th day of December, 2014

Present: Sri P.S.P.Chiranjeevi Rao,

I Addl. District Judge,Khammam.

FAC II Addl. District Judge,

(FTC-I), Khammam.

O.S No. 12 of 2002

BETWEEN:

Neerudu RamuluS/o Bakkaiah, Age: 47 years,Occu: Business,R/o H.No.8-2-128/N,Balaji Nagar, Khanapuram Haveli,Khammam Urban Mandal,Khammam District.

…Plaintiff.

And

1KutumbakaPandarinadhS/oLate Pitchaiah,AGe: 68 years, Occu:Agrl.R/o V.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District(Died)

2.KutumbakaHanumaiahS/olate Ramaiah,AGe: 60 years, Occu: Retired employee R/o V.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.(Died)

3.KutumbakaAdinarayanaS/o LateRamaiah,AGe: 57 years,Occu: Senior Assistant,ForestDepartment, Khammam,R/o.V.Venkatayapalemvillage, Khammam Urban Mandal,KhammamDistrict.

4.KutumbakaSatyanarayanaS/oLate Tirupathaiah,Age:57years,Occu: Agricultural,R/o V.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal,Khammam District.

5.KutumbakaAdinarayanaS/olate Thirupathaiah, Age: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture,R/oV.Venkatayapalem village,Khammam Urban Mandal,Khammam

District.

6. KutumbakaVeeraiahS/o LateTirupathaiah,AGe: 54 years, Occu: HealthInspector,GovernmentHospital, Khammam R/o Mustafanagar, Bonakal Road, Khammam town, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

7.KutumbakaVenkateswarluS/oLate Tirupathaiah, Age: 50 years, Occu: electrician, N.S.L.C. R/o V.Venkatayapalem village,Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

8.KutumbakaBharathiW/oLate Hanumaiah,AGe: 60 years, Occu: House hold.

9.KutumbakaSreenivasaRaoS/oLate Hanumaiah,Age: 43 years, Occu: Employee.

10. KutumbakaVenkataRamanaS/oLate Hanumaiah,Age: 36 years, Occu: Employee.

11. Kutumbaka Alivelu D/o Late Hanumaiah,Age: 33 years, Occu: Employee.

Defendants No.8 to 11 are R/o V.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal,Khammam District.

(Defendants No.8 to 11 are added as

legal representatives of Defendant No.2

as per orders inI.A.No.72 of 2008, dated

23.04.2008)

12. KutumbakaRajyamW/oLate Pandarinath,aGe: 65 years, Occu: House hold,R/oV.Venkatayapalemvillage, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

13. KutumbakaPrabhakarS/oLate Pandarinath,Age:40years,Occu: Agriculture,R/o V.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

14. KutumbakaSudhakarS/oLate Pandarinath,Age:38years,Occu: Agriculture,R/o V.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal,Khammam District.

15. Amaraneni Jhonsi w/o Venkateswarlu,AGe: 45 years, Occu: House hold, R/o D-343, P.V.Colony,Kunavaram, Bandarugudem,Khammam District.

16. Vempati Nagamani W/o Govardhan,AGe: 36 years,Occu:household,R/o V.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

(Defendants No.12 to 16 are added as

legal representatives of Defendant No.1

as per orders inI.A.No.109 of 2010,

dated 24.01.2011)

17. Kutumbaka Gopi S/o late Adinarayana, Age: 43 years, Occu: Agriculture.

18. Kutumbaka Ravi S/o Late Adinarayana,Age: 40 years, Occu: Agricultural.

Both Resident of V.Venkatayapalem village,Raghunadhapalem Mandal,formerly Khammam Urban Mandal,Khammam District.

(Defendants No.12 to 16 are added as

legal representatives of Defendant No.1

as per orders inI.A.No.109 of 2010,

dated 24.01.2011)

…Defendants.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 11.11.2014 in the presence of Sri Gogineni Madhava Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri Malladi Vasudev, Advocate for Defendants No.2 to 16, Defendant No.1 died, Defendants No.17 and 18 having been chosen to remain exparte; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this court doth Order and decree:

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed for specific performance of

Agreement of sale dated 16.08.2001 alleging that the defendants are owners of land to an extent of Ac.8.00Gts in Sy.No.252 and 255 of

V.Venkatayapalem village which is suit schedule property, they offered to sell the same @ Rs.5,50,000/- per acre, the Plaintiff has accepted for the same. The other terms and conditions were also settled on 16.8.2011. As per the terms and conditions the defendants executed agreement of sale on 16.8.2011 in favour of Plaintiff after receipt of Rs.90,000/-. As per the agreement, the Plaintiff has to pay 1/4th of the total consideration within (15) fifteen days from the date of fixing of boundaries and also showing the boundaries. The remaining total sale consideration to be paid within six months from 16.8.2001 for the arrived extent of the property on measurement and on failure to pay as stipulated the agreement of sale dated 16.8.2001 stands cancelled without any notice. The defendants have failed to get the boundaries fixed and have failed to show the suit schedule property as stipulated in the agreement to consensus by both parties, another agreement of was executed on 12.9.2001 reiterating the same terms and conditions, showing the boundaries and fixing the boundaries of the earlier agreement of sale and received Rs.11,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendants having received Rs.11,00,000/-, delivered possession and the balance of sale consideration to be paid within eight (8) months i.e., from 12.5.2002 and the Plaintiff has to get valid registered sale deed at his expenses, failing which the agreement stands cancelled and the advance amount will be forfeited without any notice. By virtue of the agreement of sale dated 12.9.2001, the plaintiff came into possession of the suit schedule property. The

Plaintiff to fulfill his part of contract he has to pay Rs.33,00,000/- and made arrangements and expressed his readiness, but the defendants are not evincing interest, thereby the plaintiff got issued notice on 27.4.2002 to the defendants well in advance and fifteen (15) days prior to the stipulated date inviting the defendants to receive the balance of sale consideration and to execute a valid registered sale deed. The Plaintiff was informed the defendants that he will wait at the Registrar's Office on 12.5.2002 with balance of sale consideration, but as 12.5.2002 was Sunday, Plaintiff having waited on 13.5.2002 at

Registrar's Office by depositing amount in Bhadradri Co-Operative

Bank Limited,Khammam. The defendants got issued reply notice on 15.5.2002 taking an untenable stand after more than (15) days without responding to the positive act of the plaintiff, the agreement of sale dated 16.8.2001 stood terminated. The very stand of the defendants is contrary to the terms and conditions. After receipt of reply notice, the plaintiff made efforts to get registered sale deed, but in vain and they are not willing to perform their part of contract.

Hence,the Suit.

3. Defendants No.17 and 18 were set exparte as per the docket orders dated 27.10.2014. Defendants No.2 died and the suit against him is abated as per the docket order dated 14.11.2003. Defendants

No.1 and 5 also died as per the amended plaint dated 22.9.2014.

4.Defendant No.7 filed written statement. Defendants No.1,3 to 6 and 12 to 16 filed adoption memo adopting the written statement of

Defendant No.7.

5.Defendant No.9 filed written statement. Defendants No.8,10 and 11 filed adoption memo adopting the written statement of defendant

No.9.

6.Defendant No.7 filed written statement denying the allegations line by line and claims that on proposal of the plaintiff to purchase the land at the given rate of Rs.5,50,000/- per acre. The defendants with an intention to convert their asset from the rural landed property to

Urban land accepted same and executed agreement of sale on 16.8.2001 with terms and conditions and the plaintiff paid Rs.90,000/- towards advance and agreed to pay 1/4th of the sale consideration within fifteen days from the date of agreement and after showing the boundaries, the plaintiff failed to comply to pay 1/4th amount by the stipulated dated, approached the Urban Police Station,Khammam, called the defendants under influence and the defendant agreed to receive the part of sale consideration of Rs.10,10,000/- on 12.9.2001 by extending time that remaining amount has to be paid by 12.5.2002. The defendants were forced to accept the proposal made by the police,as the Plaintiff brought lot of pressure from the police and political and the defendants could not evade the mounting pressure, they forced to heed the arrangement and ultimately fixed the time up to 12.5.2002 and executed document dated 12.9.2001 out of the great pressure, otherwise, the agreement is liable to be cancelled and the amount has to be forfeited, but as usual the plaintiff could not comply the terms,although they got extended time up to 12.5.2002. To cover his failure he got issued notice and it was received by the defendant on 6.5.2002, although it was posted on 29.4.2002. So, as the matter of fact they are not ready to pay the amount of balance consideration, but the defendant gave suitable reply dated 15.5.2002, as the time is essence of contract. In pursuance of this object, the present suit is neither direct the defendants to register the land nor tried to obtain interim orders.

Neither the plaintiff was put in possession by the defendant through agreement of sale dated 16.8.2001 or through the subsequent document dated 12.9.2001 and they are not admissible documents.

The Plaintiff has to prove that he is ready to perform his part of contract except bald allegations that they are ready, no corroboration evidence was filed. The suit is bared by limitation. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

7.Defendant No.9 filed written statement claiming that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract. The 2nd defendant is not party to the suit and it is not binding on the legal heirs. Neither the 2nd defendant nor his L.Rs. Defendants No.8 to 11 are necessary parties and the suit is bared and bad for mis-joinder of parties.

8.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:-

1. Whether the agreement of sale dated 12.9.2001 is an admissible document and is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether the Plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

3. To what relief?

ISSUES NO. 1 AND 2:

9.Considering the record, it is the case of the Plaintiff that the defendants are owners of land to an extent of Ac.8.00 Gts in

Sy.No. 252 and 255 of V.Venkatayapalem village, they offered to sell the same and bargain as settled @ Rs.5,50,000/- per acre and the

Plaintiff paid Rs.90,000/-. The defendant received the said amount and executed agreement of sale under Ex.A.2. As per the terms of agreement, the remaining 1/4th of amount of sale consideration have to be paid within (15) days there from, on fixing the boundaries and showing the boundaries, otherwise agreement stand cancelled.

Although the plaintiff is ready with remaining sale consideration, the defendants failed to fix the boundaries within (15) days and consensus between them, the defendants executed another agreement dated 12.9.2001 under Ex.A.1. After receipt of Rs.11,00,000/- by reiterating the terms of earlier agreement and delivered possession, acknowledged the delivery of possession. As per terms of Ex.A.1 the balance of sale consideration has to be paid within eight months i.e., by 12.5.2002, otherwise the agreement stand cancelled without any notice and the advance amount has to be forfeited. The Plaintiff is continuing in possession and he is made ready with remaining balance sale consideration amount of Rs.33,00,000/- and demanded to execute regular sale deed, but the defendants are evading, thereby he got issued notice under Ex.A.3 for which the defendants gave reply under Ex.A.4. As per Ex.A.3, the plaintiff demanded the defendants to receive the balance consideration on 12.5.2002 and to execute regular sale deed in his favour. As 12.5.2002 being Sunday, but the defendant failed to turn up, they deposited the amount in Bhadradri

Co-Operative Bank. Ex.A.5 is the Computer Generated Bank Statement of Plaintiff in Bhadradri Co-Operative Bank. Therefore, prays to decree the suit as he is ready to perform his part of contract and the defendants are not ready to perform their part of contract and the contents of reply notice are not correct. Hence, prays to decree the suit as prayed for.

10.The contention of the Defendants No.1,3 to 7,12,16 is that they are admitting about the execution of agreement of sale claiming that the plaintiff offered to purchase and they agreed to sell the land.

They also agreed the other terms of agreement marked as in Ex.A.2, but claims that the plaintiff is not ready with the sale consideration by stipulated date nor paid 1/4th amount, but subsequently they brought pressure politically and through police to extend time and police also threatened them. Ex.A.2 obtained by force. As per Ex.A.2, amount has to be paid by 12.5.2002,but the plaintiff could not pay the said amount as agreed as per terms of agreement, the agreement deemed to be cancelled and the advance amount deemed to be forfeited the terms executed under Exs.A.1 and A.2. The Plaintiff did not claim any possession under Ex.A.2, possession is with them, that they got filed

Exs.B.1 to B.5 pahanies to show their possession and Exs.A.2 is not valid, the plaintiff gave notice which is dated 27.4.2002, but it was really posted on 29.4.2002 and received by them on 6.5.2002. This notice was issued only to show that the plaintiff is ready with balance of sale consideration,although he is not ready with amount, there by they gave suitable reply on 15.5.2002 as the plaintiff is not ready with the remaining sale consideration as per terms of agreement, the agreement deemed to be forfeited. Hence, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

11.The contention of defendants No.8 to 11 is that the year legal heirs of defendant No.2 who is no more as defendant No.2 died on 29.11.2002 after filing of the suit. In Exs.A.1 and A.2, defendant No.2 is not party to the agreement, as such there is no previty of contract between the 2nd defendant and the plaintiff and there is no nexus between 2nd defendant and the plaintiff, therefore, the agreement is not binding upon defendants No.8 to 11 and the suit against them is not maintainable and they are not necessary parties to the suit.

Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against them.

12.Plaintiff claims that the reply notice was given by defendants

No.1 to 7 through Advocate Sri Challa Shankar under Ex.A.4. So, the defendants No.2 also got knowledge about the same and during his life time he did not deny the said fact, therefore, the agreement is binding upon them. So, perusal of contents, both parties admitted terms and conditions mentioned in Exs.A.1 and A.2. The defendants claims that Ex.A.2 obtained forcibly,but they are admitting about execution of Ex.A.1. Secondly, the possession of land as per Ex.A.2 was not delivered as per the claim of the defendants and claims that they are in continuous possession; Thirdly the agreement is not registered, as per it possession was delivered it is not valid documents and Fourthly; that the plaintiff is not ready to perform his part of contract as the notice under Ex.A.3 was issued by them on 27.4.2002, it was posted on 29.4.2002 and received by the defendant on 6.5.2002 and gave reply on 15.5.2002. Even as per Ex.A.3, asked the defendants to come to Sub-Registrar Office on 12.5.2002 which is

Sunday. So, knowing fully well it is Sunday, as he has no money, this notice was issued formally to defend his case although he is not having money with him; Fifth contention is that, defendant No.2 is not party to Exs.A.1 and A.2, as such it is not binding upon defendants

No.8 to 11 to his share, therefore, they are not proper and necessary party to the suit who is legal heirs of defendant No.2. The Plaintiffs claims that although defendant NO.2 is not party, defendant No.2 during his life time gave reply without mentioning this fact admitting the execution under Ex.A.4 and also signing along with other defendants in the same Vakalathnama for appearance,therefore, D.2 is impliedly accepted the contention of other defendants about the admission of execution of Exs.A.1 and A.2. Hence, defendants No.8 to11 cannot be denied the same, now at this stage.

13.So, we have to consider whether the plaintiff is ready to perform his part of contract or not?

14.To prove the same, the plaintiff filed Ex.A.5 the Computerized

Bank State of Bhadradri Co-Operative Bank,Khammam. On Perusal of

Ex.A.5, an amount of Rs.25,52,000/-was deposited in the said Bank on 13.5.2002 and total balance shown Rs.33,01,000/- on 13.5.2002 in the account of the plaintiff. As per Ex.A.3 notice, the same was issued on 27.4.2002 i.e., prior to 12.5.2002 asking the defendants No.1 to 7 to come and register the document and the case of defendant is that although it was issued on 27.4.2002 and it was received by them on 6.5.2002. As per Ex.A.4, it was replied on 15.5.2002. As per which the defendants No.1 to 7 alleged to have been given instructions to the Advocate and the Advocate gave reply admitting the execution of

Ex.A.1 and claims that Ex.A.2 was denied by them and claims that there is violation of conditions in payment of balance of amount in the stipulated time first time and second time, therefore being essence of contract and no prior notice is stipulated in the said agreement.

Hence, the amount deemed to be forfeited cannot be accepted.

15.The other contention of the defendant is that, defendant No.2 is not party to the Exs.A.1 and A.2,as such Defendants No.8 to 11 are not responsible cannot be accepted in view of Ex.A.4. Ex.A.4 is given during life time of defendant No.2. If defendant No.2 is not accepting the same, he ought to have been joined with other defendants in order to issue said reply. Therefore, the contention of defendants

No.8 to 11 that the agreement is not binding upon them cannot be accepted.

16.The other contention raised by the defence that Ex.A.2 is not valid as it is not registered. Here,Ex.A.2 is being written on white paper and it was subsequently sent for impounding of stamp duty and penalty and the Plaintiff paid Rs.15,84,000/- to the rectification to the extent of payment stamp duty was done. Here, the execution of

Ex.A.2 was not denied by the defendant, but claims that it was obtained by the plaintiff by influencing the police under threat. On perusal of evidence of Dws.1 and 2, this fact was not deposed by them. The main contention of is that the plaintiff is not ready to perform his part of contract in order to pay the amount within the stipulated time, as such the agreement is not valid. As per Ex.A.3 he gave notice even prior to expiry of agreement, dated 12.5.2002, both the contention of the defendants is that it is dated 27.4.2002, but it was posted on 29.4.2002, received by them on 6.4.2002, but that fact was not mentioned in Ex.A.4. As per Ex.A.4 they claims that as the plaintiff is not paid the amount within the stipulated time, the agreement deemed to be cancelled and the amount of advance automatically forfeited. But on perusal of Ex.A.5, it is clear that on 13.5.2002 i.e., Monday, the amount was deposited in the Bank. So, the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff is not ready with money cannot be accepted and the defendants failed to prove their case and I have no other go except to accept the contention of the

Plaintiff, the plaintiff by examining himself as Pw.1 and by filing

Exs.A.1 to A.5 proved the case. No doubt, as per Exs.B.1 to B.5 shows that the defendants are in possession, but we cannot come to conclusion basing on Exs.B.1 to B.5 that the possession was not delivered because as they are owners, their names is continuous in the pahanies and the dispute is regarding agreement. Any how, as the defendants admitting about the execution of Exs.A.1 and A.2 and the Plaintiff proved that they are ready to perform their part of contract by filing Exs.A.5 and issued notice under Ex.A.3 which given within the time, therefore, I answered these issues in favour of the

Plaintiff and against the defendants.

ISSUE NO.3:

In view of my finding given in issues No.1 and 2,the suit is decreed.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as prayed for.

The Plaintiff is directed to deposit the balance sale consideration amount within one month from the date of this Judgment.

Dictated to Stenographer,Grade-I,transcribed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of December, 2014.

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE(FTC-II)

FAC.I.ADDL.DISTRCT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINITFF:

P.W.1: Neerudu Ramulu

FOR DEFENDANTS:- D.W.1: Kutumbaka Venkateshwarlu D.W.2: Kutumbaka Srinivasa Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINITFF: Ex.A.1: Agreement of sale dated 12.9.2001. Ex.A.2: Agreement of sale dated 16.8.2001. Ex.A.3: Office copy of legal notice, dated 27.4.2002 Ex.A.4: Reply notice issued by D.1 toD.7, dt. 15.5.2002. Ex.A.5: Bank statement of Bhadradri Co-Operative Bank.

FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex.B.1: C.C. of pahani for the year,2001-02 Ex.B.2: C.C. of pahani for the year, 2002-03. Ex.B.3: C.C. of Pahani for the year,2008-09. Ex.B.4: C.C of pahani for the year, 2011-2012.

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE(FTC-II)

FAC.I.ADDL.DISTRCT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Compared by:

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC-I) AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 12th day of December, 2014

Present: Sri P.S.P.Chiranjeevi Rao,

I Addl. District Judge,Khammam.

FAC II Addl. District Judge,

(FTC-I), Khammam.

O.S No. 12 of 2002

BETWEEN:

Filed on :13.08.2002

Presented:

Neerudu RamuluS/o Bakkaiah, Age: 47 years,Occu: Business,R/oH.No.8-2-128/N,BalajiNagar, KhanapuramHaveli,KhammamUrban Mandal,Khammam District.

…Plaintiff.

And

1Kutumbaka PandarinadhS/o Late Pitchaiah,AGe: 68 years, Occu:Agrl.R/o V.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District(Died)

2.Kutumbaka Hanumaiah S/o late Ramaiah,AGe: 60 years,Occu:RetiredemployeeR/o V.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.(Died)

3.Kutumbaka Adinarayana S/o LateRamaiah,AGe: 57years,Occu:SeniorAssistant,Forest Department, Khammam,R/o.V.Venkatayapalem village,KhammamUrban Mandal,KhammamDistrict.

4.KutumbakaSatyanarayanaS/oLate Tirupathaiah,Age: 57 years, Occu: Agricultural,R/o V.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal,Khammam District.

5.Kutumbaka Adinarayana S/o late Thirupathaiah, Age:55years,Occu:Agriculture,R/o V.Venkatayapalem village,Khammam Urban

Mandal,Khammam District.

6. Kutumbaka Veeraiah S/o LateTirupathaiah,AGe: 54 years, Occu: Health Inspector,Government Hospital, Khammam R/o Mustafanagar, Bonakal Road, Khammam town, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

7.Kutumbaka VenkateswarluS/o Late Tirupathaiah, Age: 50 years, Occu: electrician, N.S.L.C. R/o V.Venkatayapalem village,Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

8.Kutumbaka BharathiW/o Late Hanumaiah,AGe: 60 years, Occu: House hold.

9.KutumbakaSreenivasaRaoS/oLate Hanumaiah,Age: 43 years, Occu: Employee.

10. KutumbakaVenkataRamanaS/oLate Hanumaiah,Age: 36 years, Occu: Employee.

11. Kutumbaka Alivelu D/o Late Hanumaiah,Age: 33 years, Occu: Employee.

Defendants No.8 to 11 are R/o V.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal,Khammam District.

(Defendants No.8 to 11 are added as legal representatives of Defendant No.2 as per orders inI.A.No.72 of 2008, dated 23.04.2008)

12. Kutumbaka Rajyam W/o Late Pandarinath,aGe: 65 years, Occu: House hold,R/o V.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

13. Kutumbaka Prabhakar S/o Late Pandarinath,Age: 40years,Occu:Agriculture,R/o V.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

14. Kutumbaka Sudhakar S/o Late Pandarinath,Age: 38years,Occu:Agriculture,R/o V.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal,Khammam District.

15. Amaraneni Jhonsi w/o Venkateswarlu,AGe: 45 years, Occu: House hold, R/o D-343, P.V.Colony,

Kunavaram, Bandarugudem,Khammam District.

16. Vempati Nagamani W/o Govardhan,AGe: 36 years, Occu: house hold, R/o V.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

(Defendants No.12 to 16 are added as legal representatives of Defendant No.1 as per orders inI.A.No.109 of 2010, dated 24.01.2011)

17. Kutumbaka Gopi S/o late Adinarayana, Age: 43 years, Occu: Agriculture.

18. Kutumbaka Ravi S/o Late Adinarayana,Age: 40 years, Occu: Agricultural.

Both Resident of V.Venkatayapalem village,RaghunadhapalemMandal,formerly Khammam Urban Mandal,Khammam District.

(Defendants No.12 to 16 are added as legal representatives of Defendant No.1 as per orders inI.A.No.109 of 2010, dated 24.01.2011) …Defendants.

CLAIM FOR: This suit filed for specific performance of contract, directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff after receiving the balance of sale consideration and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property, in case of defendants failed to oblige the directions given in the decree, court may be pleased to execute the registered sale deed on behalf of the defendants in favour of plaintiff and put him in possession of the suit schedule property, and to award costs of the suit.

COURT FEE: Suit schedule property is valued at Rs.44,00,000/-, upon which a Court fee of Rs.46,426/- is paid U/Section 39(a) of APCF and SV Act.

D E C R E E

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 11.11.2014 in the presence of Sri Gogineni Madhava Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri Malladi Vasudev, Advocate for Defendants No.2 to 16, Defendant No.1 died, Defendants No.17 and 18 having been chosen to remain exparte; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this court doth Order and decree

1. That the Suit of the Plaintiff be and is hereby decreed with costs.

2. That the Plaintiff be and is hereby directed to deposit the balance sale consideration amount within one month from the date of Judgment.

3. The defendants be and is hereby directed to pay Rs. to the Plaintiff towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this the 12th day of December, 2014.

I.ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE

(FAC.II.ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,(FTC-I)

KHAMMAM

PARTICULARS OF COSTS.

Sl.No.DescriptionPlaintiff D.2 to 16D.9D 17 D.1 and 18

1.Stamps on plaint ExparteDied

2.Stamps on Power

3.Stamps on Process

4.Stamps on Petition

5.Advocate’s Fee

6.Commissioner Fee

7.Publication Charges

8.Type and Misc. Charges.

Total

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

Dry land measuring to an extent of Ac.08.00 from and out of Sy.Nos.252 and 255 of V.Venkatayapalem village,KhammamUrban Mandal, Khammam District, bounded by:

East : Land of Kutumbaka RamaRao and Kutumbaka Hanumaiah

South: Land of Kutumbaka Anjaiah, Sandra Subaiah and sons of Kutumbaka Ramaiah.

West: Velugumatla village Polimera.

North : Land of Sons of Late Kutumbaka Kondandaramaiah

I.ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE

(FAC.II.ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,(FTC-I)

KHAMMAM

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE: AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the5th day of December, 2014

O.S No. 13 of 2012

Take notice tha the Judgment in above suit will be

pronounced in the open Court on this the 5th day of

December,2014.

Superintendent, I.Addl. District Judge's Court, Khammam 1)Sri Md.Shareef, Advocates for Plaintiffs 2)Sri K.KamalakarRao,Advocate for D.3,

3) Sri K.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for D.6

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE : AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the5th day of December, 2014

O.S No. 13 of 2012

Take notice that the Judgment in above suit will be

pronounced in the open Court on this the 5th day of

December,2014.

Superintendent, I.Addl. District Judge's Court, Khammam 1)Sri Md.Shareef, Advocates for Plaintiffs 2)Sri K.KamalakarRao,Advocate for D.3,

3) Sri K.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for D.6

MATOP No.665 of 2010, dt.11-12-2014

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 11th day of December, 2014

Present: Sri P.S.P.Chiranjeevi Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Addl. District Judge, Khammam. FAC. Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Addl. District Judge, Khammam.(FTC-I)

M.A.T.O.P.No.665 of 2010

BETWEEN:

01.Mekala @ Gaddala Nagamani W/o late Rajabhushanam,AGe: 35 years, Occu:Govt. employee.

02.MekalaKundanaD/olate Rajabhushanam,AGe:14years, Student.

MekalaKowmudiD/olate Rajabhushanam,AGe: 13 years, Occu: Student

Claim petitioners No.2 and 3 are being minors rep. by their mother and natural guardian, petitioners No.1 all are R/o H.No.10-56-54/1, Mamillagudem,Khammam town and District.

...Claim Petitioners.

And

01.Mekala Ramyasri @ Kalavathi W/o late Rajabhushanam,AGe: 41 years, Occu: House wife.

02.MekalaChaitanyaD/o Rajabhushanam,Age:16years, Occu:Student.

Both Claim Petitioners No.1 and 2 are R/oH.No.4-3-16/1,Subhashnagar, KothuruJenda, Hanamakonda,Warangal District.

MATOP No.665 of 2010, dt.11-12-2014

03.MekalaSathemmaW/o Rajalingam,Age: 60 yeas, Occu: Household,R/oH.No.4-2-309, Subhashnagar,Kothuru, Hanumakondatown,Warangal District.

04.N.Anjaneyulu S/o Raghupathi,Age: Major,Occu: Owner ofLorry bearing No.A.P.16.TU.5943,R/oH.No.13-3- 54/2,Vidyanagar, Karimnagar town District.

05.M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, 3rd Floor, Kyaas Towewr, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Court Chowrastha, Karimnagar town andDistrict, its Policy No.180517233 4822651,valid from 03.04.2008 to 2.4.2009.

06.Mekala Rajalingam S/o Nagaiah,AGe: 73 years, R/o H.No.4-2-309, Subhashnagar, Hanamkonda.

..…Respondents.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 25-11-2014 in the presence of Sri G.Moses Christopher, Advocate for claim petitioners; Respondent No.1 to 4 being chosen to remain exparte; Sri G.Eknadh, Advocate for Respondent No.5; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal is passed the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicle Act alleging that the 1st petitioner is wife, 2nd and 3rd petitioners are minor daughters of deceased Mekala Rajabhushanam .

On 23.8.2008 the said Mekala Rajabhushanam along with his two sons Chakradhar and Chanikya who are also deceased were went Manchiryal and on return to Hanamkonda, they reached near Thummanapalli village on the State Highway

MATOP No.665 of 2010, dt.11-12-2014

No.7, in the mean time lorry bearing No.A.P.16.TU.5943 came into opposite direction from Warangal to Karimangar in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the car of the deceased, resulting which the deceased Mekala

Rajabhushanam and his son Chakradhar died on the spot and second son Chanikya and the Claim petitioner No.1 sustained grievous injuries and immediately shifted the second son of deceased along with bodes were shifted to

Government Hospital, Huzurabad in 108 Ambulance where the Duty doctor conducted postmortem on the dead bodies and issued report that they died due Cardio respiratory arrest due to poly trauma and blunt injury to abdomen. Thereby registered a case in Cr.No.223 of 2008 under section 304-A and 337 of IPC. The deceased working as Dy.Executive

Engineer and earn Rs.25,000/- per month. The claim petitioners last their only earning member. Petitioner No.1 lost life partner. The claim petitioners No.2 and 3 are minor daughters they also lost their love and affection. R.3 being mother of the deceased only legal heirs and successor of the deceased. If the deceased is alive he would have earn

Rs.70,00,000/- and his contribution may be Rs.46,00,000/- to the family. They also incurred Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses and hence, claiming damages of Rs.50,00,000/- in lumpsum. The accused being driver of the crime vehicle lost his control. R.4 who is owner of the crime lorry bearing

MATOP No.665 of 2010, dt.11-12-2014

No.A.P.26.TU.5943 and R.5 is the Insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly liable to pay the compensation.

2.R.1 and R.2 filed counter. R.1 is legally wedded wife and

R.2 and minor daughter and respondent No.3 is natural mother of deceased Rajabhushanam. The respondents No.1 and 2 being the wife and daughter and they being legal heirs filed claim petition in District Court, Warangal which was numbered as O.P.No.659 of 2009 is pending. The allegations that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are utterly false that they are no way concerned with the deceased with having bad intention to claim compensation illegally. On 23.8.2008 the lorry bearing No.A.P.16.TU.5943 dashed the car of the deceased, received injuries died. The deceased was hale and healthy and working as Dy.Executive Engineer and maintaining the respondents No.1 to 3. The respondent

No.1 lost her husband and respondent No.2 lost her father and respondent No.3 lost her son. The petitioners No.2 and 3 are not children of deceased. R.4 and R.5 being owners and are liable to pay compensation. R.1 is entitled for compensation.

3.While R.5 filed written statement denying the accident and involvement of lorry bearing No.A.P.16.TU.5943 came in opposite direction hit the car, thereby death of deceased. The claim of petitioners with deceased Rajabhushanam and claims of Respondents No.1,2 and 3 and claim of petitioners

MATOP No.665 of 2010, dt.11-12-2014

No.1 and 2 as legal heirs of deceased Rajabhushanam are liable to be decided. The respondent No.5 also denied the income of deceased Rajabhushanam of Rs.25,000/- and claims petitioners are not legal heirs. R.1 and R.2 claiming compensation in O.P.No.639 of 2009 on the file of

MACT(District Judge) Warangal. The present petition has to be clubbed together the driver of the crime vehicle

No.A.P.16.TU.5943 is not holding valid licence and vehicle has no road permit and no worthy condition. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

4.R.3,R.4 and R.6 were exparte as per docket order dated 6.9.2010.R.5 was set exparte as per docket order dated 28.4.2011.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following

Issues are framed for trial:

01. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.A.P.16.TU.5943?

02. Whether the petitioners are legal heirs of late Rajabhushanam?

03. Whether the petition is maintainable in view of O.P.639 of 2009 on the file of MACT( District Judge)Warrant?

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

05. To what relief?

MATOP No.665 of 2010, dt.11-12-2014

6.To prove the respective claim, the 1st petitioner got examined herself as Pw.1 and got filed Ex.A.1 certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A.2 is certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A.3 certified copy of Postmortem Examination Report. Ex.A.4 is certified copy inquest report. Ex.A.5 is Certified copy of

M.V.I. Report and Ex.6 is Salary Certificate of deceased

Rajabhushanam.

7. Heard both sides.

8.ISSUES NO.1 TO 3:

Considering the record, it is case of the petitioner that 1st petitioner is wife, 2nd and 3rd petitioners are minor daughters of the deceased late Rajabhushanam. Respondent is also another wife. Respondent No.2 is minor daughter.

Respondent No.3 is mother of deceased Rajabhushanam.

On 23.8.2008 deceased Mekala Rajabhushanam along with his two sons went to Manchiryala on return to

Hanamakonda, a lorry bearing No.A.P.16.TU.5943 came into opposite direction and dashed against the car of deceased

Rajabushanam resulting three were died on the spot and sustained injuries to 1st petitioner and Chanikya and dead bodies to shifted to Government Hospital, Huzurabad where the duty doctor conducted postmortem examination and and police Huzurabad registered a case in Cr.No.23 of 2008 under section 304-A and 337 IPC. The deceased Rajabhushanam working as Dy.Executiving Engineer and earning Rs.25,000/-

MATOP No.665 of 2010, dt.11-12-2014 per month and he is only earning to the entire family. The 1st petitioner lost her life partner and petitioners No.2 and 3 lost their love and affection. The deceased aged about 45 years if he would have been earn Rs.70,00,000/-. The family would have got Rs.46,00,000/- and they also spent Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses. R.5 is the insurer. Hence, they are liable to pay the compensation.

7.In this case Respondents No.1 and 2 claimed to be the wife and daughter. R.1 is the legally wedded wife deceased Rajabhushanam and they are claims that they are filed O.P.No.659 of 2009 and it is pending before the District

Court, Warangal, as such the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation and only the respondents No.1 and 2 are entitled for compensation. R.4 and R.5 denies the manner of accident and in view of another O.P. 659 of 2009 pending

District Court, Warangal, the present petition is not maintainable. So, the dispute is whether Petitioners No.1 to 3 are the legal heirs or respondents No.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of deceased Rajabhushanam. Admittedly there is no dispute with regard to the legality of R.3 who is mother of deceased. Another O.P.659 of 2009 is pending as per counter. Both parties did not file any oral or documentary evidence regarding the pendency or disposal of said

O.P.No.659 of 2009. The petitioner herein was cross examined by Respondents No.1 and 2. As per cross

MATOP No.665 of 2010, dt.11-12-2014 examination marriage with deceased Rajabhushanam was performed on 8.1.1994 and their marriage is love marriage and there is dispute only to the extent of marriage and legality. Even R.3 and R.4 did not cross examined and Ex.A.6 salary certificate of deceased Rajabhushanam is filed. They did not cross examined and no suggestion was given about pendency of the O.P.No.659 of 2009 on the file of District

Court,Khammam. As the jurisdiction of this Court is very limited regarding the compensation. This court cannot decide about the legality of the wives and children they have to be decided by competent Court . As there is no evidence and also not possible to decide those facts. The quantum of damages are to be decided only. As per Ex.A.6, the deceased

Rajabhushanam is used to earn Rs.24,736/- and as per Ex.A.3 his age is 45 years after deducting 1/3rd his monthly salary is comes to Rs.16,491/- and yearly income comes to

Rs.1,97,892/- X14 multiplier comes to Rs.27,17,488/- plus funeral expenses,lost of consortium and loss of love and affection rs.29,552/-.Total comes to Rs.30,00,000/-.As R.4 is owner and R.5 is Insurer are liable to pay same. The amount awarded in this O.P can be treated as part of the amount awarded in O.P.No.659 of 2009 on the file of District Court,

Warangal and apportionment between parties shall be decided by competent Court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part.

MATOP No.665 of 2010, dt.11-12-2014

12.ISSUE NO.3:

In the result, petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- ( Rupees thirty lakhs only) against R.4 and R.5 and they jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e.,17- 08-2010, till the date of deposit of amount. This amount is also subject to the decree in O.P.659 of 2009 on the file of

District Court (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal)Warangal.

R-4 and R.5 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest thereon within one month from the date of this Order.

As there is no dispute between the legal heirs and they can hesitate about their claim before the competent court and also subject to result of O.P.659 of 2009 on the file of

District Court,Warangal. After deciding the legal heirs, the petitioners are entitled to receive the said compensation amount, till then the amount shall be deposited in F.D.R.

The advocate fee of the petitioners is fixed at

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only).

Dictated to Personal Asst., transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 3rd day of December, 2014.

FAC. CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-FTC I )

KHAMMAM.

MATOP No.665 of 2010, dt.11-12-2014

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for

PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS:

P.W.1:Mekela @ Gaddala Laxmi -None-

Exhibits marked

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.A.1. Certified copy of FIR, dt. 25-01-2010,

Ex.A.2.Certified copy of charge sheet, dt.18-05-2010,

Ex.A.3.Certified copy of Postmortem Examination Reprt.

Ex.A.4.Certified copy of Inquest Report,

Ex.A.5. Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector Report.

Ex.A.6: Salary Certificate.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

FAC. CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-FTC I )

KHAMMAM.

Compared by:

MATOP No.665 of 2010, dt.11-12-2014

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 11th day of December, 2014

Present: Sri P.S.P.Chiranjeevi Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Addl. District Judge, Khammam. FAC. Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Addl. District Judge, Khammam.(FTC-I)

M.A.T.O.P.No.665 of 2010

BETWEEN:

Filed on: 07.07.2010

Presented on:15.07.2017

01.Mekala @ Gaddala Nagamani W/o late Rajabhushanam,AGe: 35 years, Occu:Govt. employee.

02.MekalaKundanaD/olate Rajabhushanam,AGe:14years, Student.

MekalaKowmudiD/olate Rajabhushanam,AGe: 13 years, Occu: Student

Claim petitioners No.2 and 3 are being minors rep. by their mother and natural guardian, petitioners No.1 all are R/o H.No.10-56-54/1, Mamillagudem,Khammam town and District.

...Claim Petitioners.

And

01.Mekala Ramyasri @ Kalavathi W/o late Rajabhushanam,AGe: 41 years, Occu: House wife.

02.MekalaChaitanyaD/o Rajabhushanam,Age:16years,

MATOP No.665 of 2010, dt.11-12-2014

Occu:Student.

Both Claim Petitioners No.1 and 2 are R/oH.No.4-3-16/1,Subhashnagar, KothuruJenda, Hanamakonda,Warangal District.

03.MekalaSathemmaW/o Rajalingam,Age: 60 yeas, Occu: Household,R/oH.No.4-2-309, Subhashnagar,Kothuru, Hanumakondatown,Warangal District.

04.N.Anjaneyulu S/o Raghupathi,Age: Major,Occu: Owner ofLorry bearing No.A.P.16.TU.5943,R/oH.No.13-3- 54/2,Vidyanagar, Karimnagar town District.

05.M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, 3rd Floor, Kyaas Towewr, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Court Chowrastha, Karimnagar town andDistrict, its Policy No.180517233 4822651,valid from 03.04.2008 to 2.4.2009.

06.Mekala Rajalingam S/o Nagaiah,AGe: 73 years, R/o H.No.4-2-309, Subhashnagar, Hanamkonda.

.…Respondents.

CLAIM FOR:

Claim petition filed U/s.166 of M.V. ACT, for grant of compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- towards general and special damages on account of death of the deceased Mekala Rajabhushanam, to award interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of accident to till the date of realization of claim petitioner and to award costs of the claim petition.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION:

Cause of action for the petition arose on 23.08.2008 on Huzurabad-Hanamakonda R & B State High Way Road near Tummanapalli village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District within the limits of P.S. Huzurabad. The petitioners are permanent residents of Mamillagudem,Khammam town and District and as such this Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.

MATOP No.665 of 2010, dt.11-12-2014

COURT FEE:

Claim petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.50,00,00,000/- towards special and general damages, on which, court fee of Rs.49,,360/- is paid u/Sec.475 (1) (b) of A.P.M.V.Rules in State Bank of Hyderabad, Rotary Nagar Branch, Khammam in favour of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Khammam vide SB Account bearing No.52136493110.

D E C R E E

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 25-11-2014 in the presence of Sri G.Moses Christopher, Advocate for claim petitioners; Respondent No.1 to 4 being chosen to remain exparte; Sri G.Eknadh, Advocate for Respondent No.5; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal doth order and Decree::

1.That the petition be and is hereby allowed in part.

2.That the Respondent No.4 and 5 do pay compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty lakhs only) to the Claim petitioners with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e., 07.07.2010 till the date of deposit.

3.That the Respondent No.4 and 5 be are hereby directed to deposit the above said compensation amount with accrued interest thereon within one month from the date of this Order.

4.The amount awarded in this O.P. including the amount awarded in O.P.No.659 of 2009 on the file of District Court(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Warangal and apportionment between parties shall be decided by competent Court, as there is dispute between legal heirs and they can hesitate about their claim before the competent Court and after deciding legal heirs, the petitioners are entitled to receive the said amount, till then the amount deposited in F.D.R in any Nationalized Bank.

7.That the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-( Rs.One thousand only).

9. That the Respondent No.4 and 5 do pay an amount of Rs. towards proportionate costs of the petition.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this the 11th day of December, 2014.

FAC. CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-FTC I )

KHAMMAM.

MATOP No.665 of 2010, dt.11-12-2014

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Claim petitioners For R.1 For R.2 1 2 3

1. Stamps on Claim petition

2. Stamps on power

3. Stamps on process

4. Stamps on Documents

5. Stamps on Petitions

6. Advocate’s fee

7. Commissioner’s fee

8. Publication charges

9. Type & Misc. charges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Rs. ------------------------------------------------------------------

FAC. CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-FTC I )

KHAMMAM.

MATOP No.665 of 2010, dt.11-12-2014

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 10th day of December, 2014

Present: Sri P.S.P.Chiranjeevi Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Addl. District Judge, Khammam. FAC. Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Addl. District Judge,(FTC-I) Khammam.

M.A.T.O.P.No.613 of 2011

BETWEEN:

Maloth Bhaskar S/o Ratan Singh, Age:23 years, Occu:Car Driver,R/o Manja Thanda, Maripeda village and Mandal, Warangal District, presently residing at Lenin Nagar, Khammam town and District.

....Claim Petitioners.

And

01. Cheruku Srinivas S/o Sathaiah,AGe: 34 years, Occu:Driver cum owner of theLorrybearing No.A.P.29.TA.8418,R/o H.No.1-21/1, Gundrampallivillage,Chityal Mandal,Nalgonda District.

02. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, White House, Begumpeta Hyderabad, through its Local Office, Khammam Insurer of theLorrybearing No.A.P.29.TA.8418, vide Policy No.OG-1-1801-1803-00002437, valid from 16.7.2010 to 14.7.2011.

..…Respondents.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 19-11-2014 in the presence of Sri Aitham Ravindra, Advocate for claim petitioner; Respondent No.1 being chosen to remain exparte; Sri Swarna Rambab, Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal is passed the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicle Act alleging that on 24.123.2010, the petitioner along with his friend Pallapu Madhu proceeding on Bajaj Plantina Motor cycle bearing No.A.P.20.S.3122, reached Warangal X road, then the lorry bearing No.A.P.29.TA 8418 came in opposite direction in high speed and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, resulting they fell down and received grievous injuries and he was shifted to Mamatha

General Hospital, Khammam from there to Raksha Multi

Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad and admitted on 25.12.2010 and discharged on 11.1.2011 and he got treated X-rays wee taken found fracture of right Tibia with crush injury-Deep cut right leg, Debridment+EHL+EDL repair with K wire fixation medical mallaeolus and malleolus screw and K wire fixation of toe under G.A. And he was undergone plastic surgery and advised to take weekly medical checkup for eight months and he is unable to move and pray to grant Rs.3,50,000/- towards medical treatment. Police registered a casein

Cr.No.323 of 2010 under section 337 IPC and charged under section 338 IPC. The petitioner is hale and healthy and working as Car driver earing Rs.6000/- per month and Batha

Rs.100/- per day and he is suffering pain and unable to attend work. R.1 being owner of the lorry and R.2 is Insurer are liable to pay compensation an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-.

2.Counter filed by R.2, while R.1 was set exparte as per the docket order dated 5.9.2011, denying the allegations of the petition. He admits the interest of 1st respondent the owner of the vehicle and issuance of policy to respondent

Respondent No.2 vehicle and claims that the driver has no valid licence. As per F.I.R itself one Purushotham was the driver but surprisingly driver name was changed in the charge sheet. The petitioner in collusion with the police changed the driver name. So, the real driver has no valid licence. The compensation is very high. The owner,driver and insurer of Motor cycle bearing No.3122 are necessary parties, but the petitioner failed to make them parties and it is bad in law for non joinder of necessary parties and the entire fault is on the petitioner. They have also not filed driving licence and the amount claimed is very high and excessive and hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following

Issues are framed for trial:

01. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident occurred on 24.12.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.A.P.29.TA.8418 by its driver?

02. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so to what amount, from which of the Respondent?

03. To what relief?

4.To prove the respective claim, the petitioner got examined himself as Pw.1 and got filed certified copy of F.I.R

Ex.A.1. Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A.2.Certified copy of injury Certificate Ex.A.3. Discharge card Ex.A.4. Medical prescriptions Ex.A.5. Blood reports Ex.A,6. Prescriptions

Ex.A.7.Hospital Bills Ex.A.8.Medical bills Exs.A.9 to A.12.

Blood report bills Ex.A.13. Medical bill Ex.A.14. Medical bills

Ex.A.15.Medical bill under Ex.A.16 and X-ray report

Ex.A.17.Ex.A.18 is the medical disability certificate. The petitioner also got examined Dr.Nagabhushanam as Pw.2 to prove Exs.A.3,A.4,A.8,A.9 and A.13. He also got examined Dr.

T Madhan Singh as Pw.3 to prove Exs.A.5,A.6,A.15 and A.17.

5. The respondent got examined V.Nagaraju as Rw.1 and got filed policy and notice under Exs. B.1 and B.2.

5. Heard both sides.

6.ISSUES NO.1 AND 2:

Considering the record, it is the case of the petitioner that on 24.12.2010 he along with his friend

Pallapu Madhi are proceeding to Manja Thanda on Bajaj

Platina Motor cycle bearing No.A.P.20.S.3122 reached to

Warangal cross roads. Lorry bearing No.A.P.29.TA.8418 came opposite direction, dashed against the motor cycle, resulting which he himself and his friend fell on the road, he received crush injury to his right leg, bone exposed, musical crushed. He was shifted to Mamatha General

Hospital,Khammam and admitted on 25.12.2010 and discharged on 11.1.2011. He also took treatment. Due to grievous injuries he could not walk. Due to accident he lost his earnings. Police, Khammam Rural registered a case in

Cr.No.323 of 2010 under section 337 IPC and altered section of law under sec.338 of IPC. Ex.A.3 injury certificate, Ex.A.4 is discharge summary. Ex.A.5,A.7 are prescription.6 and A.8 are blood reports and X-ray reports. Exs.A.8 to A.17 are medical bills,X-ray reports, prescriptions. Exs.A.18 is the medical disability certificate. Therefore, prays to pay compensation of

Rs.7,00,000/-. Apart from him he got examined Pws.2and 3 who are doctors treated the petitioner to prove Ex.A.3 to

A.6,A.8,A.9,A.13,A.15 and A.16.

7.The respondent No.2 mainly contended that as per

Exs.A.1 F.I.R. one Purushotham is the driver of the lorry at the time of accident, but surprisingly police filed case against one Cherukuri Sreenivas. So, it is collusion with the police and this is the clear case of driver swapping . Although accident was took place on 24.12.2010, but the complaint was lodged after one day delay also raised doubt. Although they issued notice under Ex.B.2 to provide driving licence, they have not furnish the particulars of licence. Therefore,

Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation.

8.So, here the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that by examining Pws.1 to 3 by filing Exs.A.1 to A.18, the petitioner proved the case. Hence, prays to award compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that as per Ex.A.1 FIR the crime vehicle bearing No. A.P.29.TA.8418 driven by one

Purushotham and he is the instrumental for causing accident, but surprisingly police filed case against R.1.So, it is clear case of driver swapping and the name of driver mentioning in

F.I.R is not holding any driving licence. The petitioner colluded with R.1 who is having valid driving licence and filed this case. As per Ex.A9, the medical bills are advance bills, they are included in final bills, the total is Rs.1,46,780/-.

Therefore, they are not liable.

9.So, on perusal of contention of respondent he is admitting the accident but claims the swapping of driver.

The burden is upon the respondent to prove the said fact, but no evidence is adduced to prove the said fact. The only evidence of Rw.1 cannot be accepted. By examining Pw.1 and by filing of Exs.A.1 to A.18,the petitioner proved the case and the accident and R.1 who is driver-cum-owner is liable to pay the compensation, so also R.2, as there is no evidence about swapping of driver, except evidence of Rw.1 which is not acceptable. As per Ex.A.18, the petitioner suffering with disability of 57%. The contention of the respondent that the claiming of disability by the petitioner is not valid under medico legal case, but it is not acceptable. Admittedly, there are medical bills under Ex.A.9 they are advance bills. As per the claim of the petitioner they incurred expenditure

Rs.1,87,300/- but total bills is Rs.1,46,780/-. As Ex.A.7 bills are included in final bills. The petitioner is entitled to

Rs.1,46,780/-. Regarding the injuries as per Exs.A.3 and A.4 and evidence of Pws.2 and 3, he received crush injury, bone exposed muscle crushed, there is fracture. As the petitioner is suffering with disability of 57%, his age is about 25 years and his right leg being crushed, it is not possible for him to drive the vehicles and he is entitled for loss of earnings and his earnings can be taken of Rs.3000/- per month yearly comes to Rs.36,000/- out his multiplier 18 is come to

Rs.6,48,000/- Plus Rs.1,86,000/- comes to Rs.8,34,000/-, but his claim is only Rs.7,00,000/-.So, claim is restricted to

Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only). R.1 is being owner and driver of crime vehicle and R.2 is insurer are liable to pay compensation. The petitioner amended the claim petition only on 7.2.2013, he is entitled for interest fro the amount from that date onwards only.

12.ISSUE NO.3:

In the result, petition is allowed with proportionate costs, awarding compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- ( Seven lakhs only ) against Respondent No.1 and 2, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of amount. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the amount.

The advocate fee of the petitioners is fixed at

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only).

Dictated to Personal Asst., transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 9th day of December, 2014.

FAC. CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-FTC I )

KHAMMAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for

PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS:

P.W.1.Maloth Bhaskar Rw.1: V.Nagaraju

P.W.2. Dr. Nagabhushanam.

P.W.3: Dr. T.Madan Singh.

Exhibits marked

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.A.1: is the certified copy of F.I.R

Ex.A.2: is the Certified copy of charge sheet

Ex.A.3: is Certified copy of injury Certificate

Ex.A.4: is the Discharge card

Ex.A.5: is the Medical prescriptions

Ex.A.6: is the Blood reports

Ex.A.7: is the Prescriptions

Ex.A.8: is the Hospital Bills

Ex.A.9 to A.12 are the Medical bills

Ex.A.13: is the Blood report bills

Ex.A.14: is the Medical bill

Ex.A.15: is the Medical bills

Ex.A.16: is the Medical bill under

Ex.A.17: is the X-ray report

Ex.A.18 is the medical disability certificate.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B.1. Policy Copy

Ex.B.2: Legal notice of R.1 along with postal receipt.

FAC. CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-FTC I )

KHAMMAM.

Compared by:

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

ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 10th day of December, 2014

Present: Sri P.S.P.Chiranjeevi Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Addl. District Judge, Khammam. FAC. Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Addl. District Judge,(FTC-I) Khammam.

M.A.T.O.P.No.613 of 2011

BETWEEN:

Filed on:23.07.2011

Presented on:27.07.2011

Maloth Bhaskar S/o Ratan Singh, Age:23 years, Occu:Car Driver,R/o Manja Thanda, Maripeda village and Mandal, Warangal District, presently residing at Lenin Nagar, Khammam town and District.

....Claim Petitioners.

And

01.Cheruku Srinivas S/o Sathaiah,AGe: 34 years, Occu:Driver cum owner of the Lorry bearing No.A.P.29.TA.8418,R/o H.No.1-21/1, Gundrampalli village, Chityal Mandal,Nalgonda District.

02.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, White House, Begumpeta Hyderabad, through its Local Office, Khammam Insurer of the Lorry bearing No.A.P.29.TA.8418, vide Policy No.OG-1- 1801-1803-00002437,validfrom 16.7.2010 to 14.7.2011.

..…Respondents. CLAIM FOR :

Claim petition filed U/s.166 of M.V. ACT, for grant of compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the accident till the date of its realization towards special and general damages on account of injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident driven by its driver R.1 being the owner and R.2 being the insurer of the said crime vehicle.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION:

Cause of action for the petition arose on 24-12-2010 near Warangal Cross Road, Khammam, Khammam town and district within the limits of P.S. Khammam Rural which is within the jurisdiction of this court and this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.

COURT FEE:

Claim petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- towards special and general damages, on which, court fee of Rs.4,360/- is paid u/Sec.475 (1) (b) of A.P.M.V.Rules in State Bank of Hyderabad, Rotary Nagar Branch, Khammam in favour of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Khammam vide SB Account bearing No.52136493110.

D E C R E E

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 19-11-2014 in the presence of Sri Aitham Ravindra, Advocate for claim petitioner; Respondent No.1 being chosen to remain exparte; Sri Swarna Rambab, Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal doth order and Decree:

1.That the petition be and is hereby allowed.

2.That the Respondent No.1 and 2 do pay compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees seven lakhs only) to the Claim petitioners with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of amended claim petition i.e. on 07.02.2013 till the date of deposit.

3.That the Respondents No.1 and 2 be and is hereby directed to deposit the above said compensation amount with accrued interest thereon within one month from the date of this Order.

4.On such deposit, the claim petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount with interest.

5.That the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- ( thousand only).

6. That the Respondents No. 1 and 2 do pay an amount of Rs. towards proportionate costs of the petition.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this the 10th day of December, 2014.

FAC. CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-FTC I )

KHAMMAM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Claim petitioners For R.1 For R.2

1. Stamps on Claim petition E D

2. Stamps on power X I

3. Stamps on process P S

4. Stamps on Documents A M

5. Stamps on Petitions R I

6. Advocate’s fee T S

7. Commissioner’s fee E S

8. Publication charges E

9. Type & Misc. charges D ------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Rs. ------------------------------------------------------------------

FAC. CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-FTC I )

KHAMMAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE(F.T.C.I) AT

KHAMMAM

Dated this the 9th day of December, 2014

MVOP.No.737 of 2013

Take notice that the Orders in above MVOP will be pronounced to-day i.e., on the 9thday of

December,2014 in the open Court.

Superintendent, II.Addl. District Judge's Court, FTC.I.Khammam 1)Sri Y.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate for Petitioner 2)Sri G. Seetha Rama Rao,Advocate for Respondent No.2

I IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE(F.T.C.I) AT

KHAMMAM

Dated this the 9th day of December, 2014

MVOP.No.737 of 2013

Take notice that the Orders in above MVOP will be pronounced to-day i.e., on the 9thday of

December,2014 in the open Court.

Superintendent, II.Addl. District Judge's Court, FTC.I.Khammam 1)Sri Y.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate for Petitioner 2)Sri G. Seetha Rama Rao,Advocate for Respondent No.2

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 15th day of December, 2014

Present: Sri P.S.P.Chiranjeevi Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Addl. District Judge, Khammam. FAC. Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Addl. District Judge, Khammam.(FTC-I)

M.A.T.O.P.No.808 of 2012

BETWEEN:

01.PusuluriSudharaniW/olate Venkateshwarlu, Age: 32 yeas, Occu: House hold.

02.PusuluriSaikumarS/olatle Venkateswarlu,Age: 14 years,Occu: Student.

03.PusuluriVyshnaviD/olate Venkateswarlu,AGe: 10 years, Occu: Student.

Claim petitioners NO.2 and 3 are minors rep. by their mothewr natural guardina petitioner No.1 all are R/o Ponnekal village of Khammam Rural Mandal and Khammam District.

...Claim Petitioners.

And

01.Mohmmed Abdullaiah S/o Mohamed Jangheer Sahab,AGe: Major, Occu: ownewroflorrybearing No.A.P.10.V.2121 R/o H.No.10-2, Kandi Sanga Reddy town, Medak District.

02.The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,Sanga Reddy of Medak District, rep. by its Branch

Manager, Wyra Road, Khammam vide cover Note No.110001206147,valid from 4.2.2011 to 3.2.2012.

…Respondents.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 25-11- 2014 in the presence of Sri O.Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for claim petitioners; Sri J.Upender, Advocate for Respondent No.1; and Sri B.Seetha Rama Rao,Advocate for R.2 upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal is passed the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicle Act alleging that the 1st petitioner is wife, 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the children of 1st petitioner and deceased Pusuluri

Venkateshwar Rao. On 8.8.2011 the deceased Pusuluri

Venkateshwar Rao along with his villager went to

Thallampadu and on returning on his motor cycle bearing

No.A.P.27.A.9097 when they reached outskirts of Pedda

Moreelu, the driver of lorry bearing No.A.P.10.V.2121 drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner dashed their motor cycle due to which the deceased and rider of Motor cycle fell22 down on the road , the crime vehicle ran over the head of the deceased and he died on the spot. The deceased doing agriculture having 15 acres of land and raising commercial crops i.e., chilly, cotton, maize,red gram and green gram and used to earn Rs.5,00,000/- per year and got good reputation and Adharsha Ryoth. He lived up to 70 yeas. The petitioners are only legal heirs .The respondent No.1 is the owner of crime vehicle and Respondent No.2 is the Insurer they jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The Station House

Officer P.S. Khammam Rural registered a case in Cr.No.187 of 2011 under section 304-A and 337 IPC. Hence, prays to award compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-

2.The same was opposed by filing by R.1 and they not admitting the accident occurred due to negligence of lorry bearingNo.A.P.10.V.2121anddeceasedPusuluri

Venkateshwar Rao died on the spot. Really the deceased himself drove the motor cycle bearing No.A.P.27.A.9097 contributed for the accident, as such the claimants are not entitled for any compensation from R.1. Due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing No.A.P.27.A.9097 by the deceased and the owner and insurer of the said motor cycle are necessary parties to the claim petition. The respondent No.1having driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle is road worthy and it is validly insured.

Hence, prays to award compensation against R.2 only.

3.Basing on the above pleadings, the following

Issues are framed for trial:

01. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.A.P.10.V.2121?

02. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

03. To what relief?

4.To prove the respective claim, the 1st petitioner got examined herself as Pw.1 and got filed Ex.A.1 certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A.2 is certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A.3 certified copy of Postmortem Examination Report. Ex.A.4 is certified copy inquest report. Ex.A.5 is Certified copy of

M.V.I. Report and Ex.6 Pahani pertaining to the land of deceased. Petitioner also got examined one Y.Rama Rao eye witness to the incident as Pw.2 and they also got examined one M.Venkateshwar Rao another eye witness as Pw.3 who is the driver of the motor cycle.

5.The respondent did not adduce any oral evidence but got filed policy copy marked as Ex.B.1 by consent.

6. Heard both sides.

7.ISSUES NO.1 AND 2:

Considering the record, the case of the petitioners is that the the 1st petitioner is the wife and 2nd and 3rd petitioners are children of deceased Pusuluri Venkateshwar

Rao. On 23.8.2010 the deceased Pusuluri Venkateshwar Rao was proceeding along with his villagers who is Pw.3 by name

M.VenkateshwarRaoonmotorcyclebearing

No.A.P.27.A.9097 driven by Pw.3, when they reached Pedda

Moreelu, the lorry bearing No.A.P.10.V.2121 drove the same in rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle, there by the debased who is pillion rider fell down on the road, the lorry ran over on his head and he died on the spot. The deceased having 15 acres of land raising commercial crops like chilly, cotton, maize, red gram, green gram and earning Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. The 1st petitioner lost her conjugal life towards her husband and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners lost their love and affection towards their father. Hence, they are claiming damages of

Rs.8,00,000/-. Ex.A.1 is F.I.R. Ex.A.2 Charge sheet. Ex.A.3 postmortem examination report. Ex.A.4 inquest report. Ex.A.5

M.V.I. Report and Ex.A.6 is the Pahani to show that the deceased has got land. Apart from her evidence, the 1st petitioner got examined Y.Rama Rao as Pw.1 and driver of motor cycle as Pw.3.The respondent also denied the manner of accident and the driver has no valid licence. If, really, the deceased drove the vehicle and he has no valid license, the respondent No.2 has to prove the same,but he did not adduce any evidence except filing Ex.B.1 policy by nor filed any counter. 1st respondent only contesting the matter. He has not adduced any oral evidence except denying accident.

R.2 is only liable. Therefore, I had no other go except accepting the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.6.

8.Regarding the earnings, the petitioners claims that he got 15 acres of land and got filed Exs.A.6 which shows that the deceased got 5 acres of land. The Prime income is agriculture. So his income can be considered at Rs.50,000/- per year. After deducting 1/3rd, his yearly earnings comes to

Rs.37,500/-. As per. As per Exs.A.1 and A.2, the entire fault is on the part of the driver of the lorry. As per Ex.A.3 postmortem examination certificate, the age of the deceased is 38 years. Rs.37,500/- multiplier is 15. Hence, the yearly income of deceased is multiplier ie., 37,500 X 15=5,62,000/-.

Loss of consortium, love and affection Rs.36,500/-. Total compensation awarded Rs.6,00,000/-. Out of which the petitioners No.1 to 3 are entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- each. 1st petitioner can withdraw Rs.50,000/- remaining amount can be deposited and kept in FDR for two years. The amount of petitioners NO.2 and 3 shall be kept in FDR until they are attained majority and they are permitted to withdraw after attaining majority.

8.ISSUE NO.3:

In the result, petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs awarding compensation of awarded

Rs.6,00,000/- against R.1 and R.2 and R.1 and R.2 are liable to pay compensation amount with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of amount.

Out of which the petitioners No.1 to 3 are entitled to

Rs.2,00,000/- each. 1st petitioner can withdraw Rs.50,000/- remaining amount can be deposited and kept in FDR for two years. The amount of petitioners NO.2 and 3 shall be kept in

FDR until they are attained majority and they are permitted to withdraw after attaining majority. against R.1 and R.2 are liable jointly and severally.

The advocate fee of the petitioners is fixed at

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only).

Dictated to Personal Asst., transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 15th day of December, 2014.

FAC. CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-FTC I )

KHAMMAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for

PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS:

P.W.1:P.Sudha Rani -None-

P.W.2: Y.Rama Rao

P.W.3: M.Venkateswar Rao

Exhibits marked

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.A.1. Certified copy of First Information Report

Ex.A.2.Certified copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A.3.Certified copy of Postmortem Examination Report.

Ex.A.4.Certified copy of Inquest Report,

Ex.A.5. Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector Report.

Ex.A.6: Pahani copy

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B.1: Policy copy

FAC. CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-FTC I )

KHAMMAM.

Compared by:

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

ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 15th day of December, 2014

Present: Sri P.S.P.Chiranjeevi Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Addl. District Judge,Khammam FAC. Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl. District Judge, Khammam.(FTC-I)

M.A.T.O.P.No.808 of 2012

BETWEEN:

Filed on: 26.06.2012

Presented on:04.07.2012.

01.PusuluriSudharaniW/olate Venkateshwarlu, Age: 32 yeas, Occu: House hold.

02.PusuluriSaikumarS/olatle Venkateswarlu,Age: 14years,Occu: Student.

03.PusuluriVyshnaviD/olate Venkateswarlu,AGe: 10 years, Occu: Student.

Claim petitioners NO.2 and 3 are minors rep. by their mother natural guardian petitioner No.1 all are R/o Ponnekal village of Khammam Rural Mandal and Khammam District.

...Claim Petitioners.

And

01.Mohmmed Abdullaiah S/o Mohamed Jangheer Sahab,Age: Major, Occu: owner of lorry bearing No.A.P.10.V.2121 R/o H.No.10-2, Kandi Sanga Reddy town, Medak District.

02.The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,Sanga Reddy of Medak District, rep. by its Branch Manager, Wyra Road, KhammamvidecoverNote No.110001206147,valid from 4.2.2011 to 3.2.2012.

…Respondents.

CLAIM FOR :

Claim petition filed U/s.166 of M.V. ACT, for grant of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- towards general and special damages on account of death of the deceased Pusuluri Venkateshwarlu, to award interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of accident to till the date of realization of claim petitioner and to award costs of the claim petition.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION:

Cause of action for the petition arose on 08.08.2011 on the outskirts of Thallampadu village of Khammam Rural Mandal, and Khammam District within the limits of P.S. Khammam Rural which is within the jurisdiction of this court and this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.

COURT FEE:

Claim petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards special and general damages, on which, court fee of Rs.7,360/- is paid u/Sec.475 (1) (b) of A.P.M.V.Rules in State Bank of Hyderabad, Rotary Nagar Branch, Khammam in favour of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Khammam vide SB Account bearing No.52136493110.

D E C R E E

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 25-11-2014 in the presence of Sri O.Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for claim petitioners; Sri J.Upender, Advocate for Respondent No.1; and Sri B.Seetha Rama Rao,Advocate for R.2 upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal doth Order and Decree:

1.That the petition be and is hereby allowed in part.

2.That the Respondent No.2 do pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakhs only) to the Claim petitioners with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e., 26.06.2012 till the date of deposit.

3.That the Respondent No.2 be and is hereby directed to deposit the above said compensation amount with accrued interest thereon within one month from the date of this Order.

4.That Out of the said compensation amount, Petitioners No.1 to 3 are entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- each i.e., the Petitioner No.1 being wife be and is hereby entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- and Petitioners No.2 being son be and is hereby entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- and Petitioner No.3 being daughter be and is hereby entitled to Rs.2,00,000/-

5.Out of the said compensation amount of the 1s t petitioner, the 1s t Petitioner is entitled to withdraw Rs.50,000/- and directed to deposit remaining amount in F.D.R for two years in any Nationalized Bank.

6. The petitioners No.2 and 3 are being minors and directed to deposit their compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in any Nationalized Bank as FDR until they are attained age of majority and they are permitted to withdraw the said amount after attaining age of majority.

7.That the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-( Rs.One thousand only).

9. That the Respondent No.1 do pay an amount of Rs. towards proportionate costs of the petition.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this the 15th day of December, 2014.

FAC. CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-FTC I )

KHAMMAM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Claim petitioners For R.1 For R.2 1 2 3

1. Stamps on Claim petition

2. Stamps on power

3. Stamps on process

4. Stamps on Documents

5. Stamps on Petitions

6. Advocate’s fee

7. Commissioner’s fee

8. Publication charges

9. Type & Misc. charges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Rs. ------------------------------------------------------------------

FAC. CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-FTC I )

KHAMMAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 15th day of December, 2014

Present: Sri P.S.P.Chiranjeevi Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Addl. District Judge, Khammam. FAC. Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Addl. District Judge,(FTC-I) Khammam.

M.A.T.O.P.No.147 of 2012

BETWEEN:

Cherukuri Pullamma W/o Ramaiah,AGe: 55 ytears,Occu: Coolie,R/o Mothi Nagar, Khammam town and Mandal, Khammam District.

....Claim Petitioners.

And

01. D.NareshS/oSatyanarayana,Age: Major, Occu: Owner of the Motor cycle ebaring No.A.P.23.J.4438,R/o H.No.1-74,Kondavanamala, KonijerlaMandal,Khammam District.

02. The New India Assurance Company Lkimited, Khammam,m rep by its B.M.R/o D.No.9-3-143, Old Club Road,NearVinodaMahal, Khammam town and District. Policy coverNote No.61090231110200000874,valid from 26.4.2011 to 25.4.2012.

..…Respondents.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 21-11-2014 in the presence of Sri O.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate for claim petitioner; Sri Talari Mangaiah,Advocate

for Respondent No.1 ; Sri G.Seetha Rama Rao, Advocate for

Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal is passed the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicle Act alleging that on 21.7.2011 the petitioner is waiting for auto near LIC Office, Wyra Road, Khamma, then the motor cycle beari9ng No.A.P.23.J.4438 driven by respondent No.1 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. Immediately, she received fracture to left leg and received multiple injuries all over the body and case in

Cr.No.76 of 2011 under section 338 of IPC was registered.

The claim of the petitioner is that she is earning Rs.3,000/- per month as coolie. The claim petitioner shifted to Cure

Hospital,X-rays was taken both bone fracture of left leg, injury to left foot, sutured wound left knee joint and necessary surgery was done and she was in hospital for ten days and advised to take rest of four months. She spent

Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. She lost her income and pain suffer and she is aged about 58 years. Hence, claiming damages of Rs.1,00,000/-.R.1 is owner and driver of crime vehicle and R.2 is insurer of the crime vehicle are liable to pay the compensation.

2.The same was opposed by fling written statement by 1st respondent and claims that the accident took place due to negligence act of the claim petitioner. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle.

They are not admitting the age, income and injury and treatment taken by the injured. The crime vehicle is insured with R.2 and the driver got valid licence. Hence, R.2 is only liable to pay compensation.

3.R.2 filed counter denying the allegations and involvement of R.1 and denied the petitioner is working as coolie, earning Rs.3,000/- per month and about the manner of accident and nature of injuries, R.1 is the driver and the vehicle is fit condition and insurance is valid insurance and claims that with an observing the movement of the vehicle the petitioner crossed the road and sustained injuries colluded with R.1 and filed this petition. They are not aware about criminal case and the amount of compensation is very high. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following

Issues are framed for trial:

01. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Motor cycle bearing No.A.P.23.J.4438?

02. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so to what amount, from which of the Respondent?

03. To what relief?

4.To prove the respective claim of the petitioner, she got examined herself as Pw.1 and got filed certified copy of F.I.R

Ex.A.1. Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A.2.Certified copy of

Medical Certificate Ex.A.3. Medical certificate Ex.A.4 Medical bills Exs.A.5 Medical Prescriptions. The petitioner also got examined Dr. Ch.Ravi Kumar as Pw.2 to prove the injuries.

The respondent did not adduce any oral evidence and filed policy copy under Ex.B.1.

5. Heard both sides.

6.ISSUES NO.1 AND 2:

It is the case of the petitioner that on 21.7.2011 when she is waiting for Auto near L.I.C.Office, Wyra Road,

Khammam, Motor cycle bearing No.A.P.23.J.4438, driven by

R.1 in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against her, due to which she received injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Cure Hospital, as she she is sustained injuries, she was in hospital for ten days and she received fracture to left leg leg, injury over left foot, sutured wound over left knee joint and multiple injuries and necessary surgery was done, she incurred expenditure as she is in hospital for ten days and advocated advised her to take bed rest for four months.

Police registered case in Cr.No.76 of 2011 under section 338 of IPC. Ex.A.1 is the F.I.R and Ex.A.2 is charge sheet. Ex.A,.3 is medical certificate. Ex.A.4 is the medical bills and Ex.A.5 is the medical prescriptions. Apart from they have got examined Dr. Ch.Ravi Kumar as Pw.2 to prove the injuries and to prove as she under went surgery and applied lock in plate. She was in hospital for 10 days. The respondent did not adduce any oral evidence except filing Ex.B.1 by consent. As per counter they denied the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of crime motor cycle and claims that the entire negligence on the part of the petitioner but did not adduce any oral evidence. As per evidence of Pw.1 and

Exs.A.1 and A.2 petitioner proved the case. As per Ex.A.3 she received three grievous injuries. Ex.A.4 she incurred expenditure Rs.82,400/- for she is entitled. For three grievous injuries 3 X 10,000= Rs.30,000/- loss of pay Rs.20,000/-,total compensation of Rs.1,22,400/- for which she is entitled.

12.ISSUE NO.3:

In the result, petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs , awarding compensation of Rs.1,22,400/- ( Rupees one lakh and twenty two thousand four hundred only. only) against Respondent No.1 and 2 with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of amount. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the amount.

The advocate fee of the petitioners is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only).

Dictated to Personal Asst., transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 15th day of December, 2014.

FAC. CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-FTC I )

KHAMMAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for

PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS:

P.W.1.Ch.Pullamma -None-

P.W.2. Dr.Ch.Ravi Kumar

Exhibits marked

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.A.1: Certified copy of FIR

Ex.A.2:Certified copy of charge sheet

Ex.A.3: C.C. medical certificate

Ex.A.4: Medical Bills

Ex.A.5: Medical prescriptions

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B.1. Policy Copy

FAC. CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-FTC I )

KHAMMAM.

Compared by:

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

ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 15th day of December, 2014

Present: Sri P.S.P.Chiranjeevi Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Addl. District Judge, Khammam. FAC. Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Addl. District Judge,(FTC-I) Khammam.

M.A.T.O.P.No.147 of 2012

BETWEEN:

Filed on: 19.01.2012

Presented on: 20.01.2012

Cherukuri Pullamma W/o Ramaiah,Age: 55 years,Occu:Coolie,R/oMothiNagar, Khammam town and Mandal, Khammam District.

....Claim Petitioner.

And

01.D.NareshS/o Satyanarayana,Age: Major, Occu: Owner of the Motor cycle bearing No.A.P.23.J.4438,R/oH.No.1-74, Kondavanamala, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District.

02.The New India Assurance Company Lkimited, Khammam,m rep by its B.M.R/o D.No.9-3-143, Old Club Road, Near Vinoda Mahal, Khammam town and District. Policy cover Note No.61090231110200000874,valid from 26.4.2011 to 25.4.2012.

.…Respondents.

CLAIM FOR :

Claim petition filed U/s.166 of M.V. ACT, for grant of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the accident till the date of its realization towards special and general damages on account of injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident driven by its driver R.1 being the owner and R.2 being the insurer of the said crime vehicle.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION:

Cause of action for the petition arose on 21-07-2011 Near Old L.I.C. Office,Wyra Road,Khammam, Khammam town and District within the limits of Traffic P.S.Khammam which is within the jurisdiction of this court and this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.

COURT FEE:

Claim petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards special and general damages, on which, court fee of Rs.1,360/- is paid u/Sec.475 (1) (b) of A.P.M.V.Rules in State Bank of Hyderabad, Rotary Nagar Branch, Khammam in favour of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Khammam vide SB Account bearing No.52136493110.

D E C R E E

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 21-11-2014 in the presence of Sri O.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate for claim petitioner; Sri Talari Mangaiah,Advocate for Respondent No.1 ; Sri G.Seetha Rama Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal doth order and Decree:

1.That the petition be and is hereby allowed.

2.That the Respondent No.1 and 2 do pay compensation of Rs.1,22,400/-(Rupees one lakh twenty two thousand and four hundred only) to the Claim petitioners with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition i.e. on 19.01.2012 till the date of deposit.

3.That the Respondents No.1 and 2 be and is hereby directed to deposit the above said compensation amount with accrued interest thereon within one month from the date of this Order.

4.On such deposit, the claim petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount with interest.

5.That the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- ( thousand only).

6. That the Respondents No. 1 and 2 do pay an amount of Rs. towards proportionate costs of the petition.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this the 15th day of December, 2014.

FAC. CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-FTC I )

KHAMMAM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Claim petitioners For R.1 For R.2

1. Stamps on Claim petition

2. Stamps on power

3. Stamps on process

4. Stamps on Documents

5. Stamps on Petitions

6. Advocate’s fee

7. Commissioner’s fee

8. Publication charges

9. Type & Misc. charges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Rs. ------------------------------------------------------------------

FAC. CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-FTC I )

KHAMMAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE(F.T.C.I) AT

KHAMMAM

Dated this the 9th day of December, 2014

MVOP.No.737 of 2013

Take notice that the Orders in above MVOP will be pronounced to-day i.e., on the 9thday of

December,2014 in the open Court.

Superintendent, II.Addl. District Judge's Court, FTC.I.Khammam 1)Sri Y.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate for Petitioner 2)Sri G. Seetha Rama Rao,Advocate for Respondent No.2

I IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE(F.T.C.I) AT

KHAMMAM

Dated this the 9th day of December, 2014

MVOP.No.737 of 2013

Take notice that the Orders in above MVOP will be pronounced to-day i.e., on the 9thday of

December,2014 in the open Court.

Superintendent, II.Addl. District Judge's Court, FTC.I.Khammam 1)Sri Y.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate for Petitioner 2)Sri G. Seetha Rama Rao,Advocate for Respondent No.2