Sri P V Ramana Rayalu

1AS No. 266-15

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURTS : HYDERABAD

Thursday, the 28th day of APRIL, 2016

Present: Sri P.V.RAMANA RAYALU

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

AS No. 266 of 2015

Between :

Mohammed Abdul Quayyum… Appellant/Plaintiff

A N D

The Regional Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Passport Office at Secunderabad … Respondent/Defendant

APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

18.06.2015 PASSED BY THE IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY

CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD

IN

OS No. 886 of 2015

Between :

Mohammed Abdul Quayyum… Plaintiff

A N D

The Regional Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Passport Office at Secunderabad …. Defendant

This Appeal Suit coming on 22.04.2016 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M L Khan Advocate

for the Appellant, and having stood over for consideration till this

day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dt.

18.06.2015 in OS No. 886 of 2015 passed by IX Junior Civil Judge, 2AS 266-15

City Civil Court, Hyderabad. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff in the suit preferred this appeal questioning the correctness of the impugned judgment and decree.

2)For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter will be referred as arrayed in the suit.

3) The suit was filed for declaration of Date Of Birth of the plaintiff as 25.06.1978 instead of 12.06.1975 and the plaintiff's name as Mohammed Abdul Quayyum instead of Mohammed Abdul

Qayyum and declare the name of the father of the plaintiff as

Mohammed Abdul Rahim instead of Mohammed Abdul Raheem.

The suit was against the Regional Passport Officer, Office at

Hyderabad.

4)The material averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is a resident of Hyderabad and he was born on 25.06.1978 in

Hyderabad and he was admitted into Jubilee High School,

Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad where he had studied upto X class and passed his SSC examination in the month of March, 1993.The plaintiff obtained the passport bearing No. A 3608814 dt.

13.08.1997 issued by the defendant office, at such time the plaintiff had taken the help of an agent and totally relied on such agent, who filed the passport application form and accordingly the 3AS 266-15 plaintiff obtained the passport. The plaintiff did not realise the mistake at that point of time with regard to the wrong mention of date of birth in the passport as 12.06.1975 instead of 25.06.1978 and plaintiff's name as Mohammed Abdul Qayyum instead of

Mohammed Abdul Quayyum and plaintiff's father's name as

Mohammed Abdul Raheem instead of Mohammed Abdul Rahim.

The plaintiff had travelled to Dubai in the year 2001 and he was compelled to hand over his passport to his employer. After few years the plaintiff came to know that his employer was using passport for illegal activities and when demanded for his passport, the employer terminated his services without giving his passport.

The plaintiff wandered in Dubai for many days taking shelter in mosques and with the help of one person he could travel to India back with great difficulty. The plaintiff managed to obtain

Passport bearing No. H 1736410 through that man and came back to India. The plaintiff married on 04.09.2012 and planned to travel to Malasiya and as the plaintiff was boarding the flight to Malasiya from Bangaluru Airport, Karnataka, the Immigration Authorities confiscated his passport bearing No. H 1736410 stating that the

Passport bearing No. H 1736410 was a fake one. The plaintiff realised that he was duped by the person in Dubai. The Bangaluru

International Airport police filed Crime No.9 of 2013 under Section 12(1) ABDE of Passport Act and the case was registered as CC No.

2118/2013 and during trial,the plaintiff pleaded guilty and he was convicted and fine of Rs.4,000/-. The plaintiff approached office of the defendant and made a representation dt. 05.02.2015 along 4AS 266-15 with copies of old passport bearing No. A 3608814, original SSC

Memorandum of Marks, Original Adhar Card, Original PAN Card,

Original Voter's ID Card, Copies of Court Order of Hon'ble JMFC

Devanahalli, Karnataka, Bail Copy, Penalty Copy and payment receipt for fresh passport with correction of date of birth in accordance with SSC Certificate etc. The defendant officials denied and refused to consider the same and asked the plaintiff to approach the competent court for getting declaration Order for correction of the date of birth in accordance with the SSC

Certificate of the plaintiff, correction of plaintiff's correct name. The plaintiff is in need of his passport for his personal use and for his job purpose abroad. The mistake crept in the date of birth, his name and his father's name in the passport was only due to agent and they are arithmetical and clerical errors, who filled up the passport application. Hence the suit was filed.

5)The defendant remained exparte in the suit.

6)The plaintiff himself was examined as Pw.1 and got marked

Exs A.1 to A.6 documents. The Trial Court on consideration of the same quoted the circular dated 29.10.2007 and observed that the plaintiff can approach the court for declaration only when other authority subsequently issues another document/certificate showing the plaintiff's year of birth as different and as per Clause 'c' of Circular dt. 29.10.2007, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration. The Trial Court also observed that if a government 5AS 266-15 servant or any government authority do not perform their duty as per law, there are remedies under Indian Constitution under

Article 32 and 226 and the plaintiff can take proper steps as per law, while observing so, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

7)Now the point for consideration is whether the declaration sought for by the plaintiff can be issued?

8) POINT :- In the appeal the appellant filed one document dt.

28.05.2015 issued by the defendant as follows:

“This is in reference to your Passport application number HY 1078270251715 dt. 05.02.2015.

On processing of the Application form, the following shortcomings came to notice:-

1) Since you are seeking change of date of birth from 12.06.1975 to 25.06.1978 (more than 3 years), you are advised to furnish declaratory decree from competent civil court to effect change in date of birth.

If you live in the vicinity of Passport Office Hyderabad or have been specifically asked to appear in person, you could choose to submit the required documents to the Enquiry Officer at the Passport

Office on any working day from Monday to Friday between 10.00

A.M. and 12.00 noon. If the service is rendered, please ignore this letter or please treat this letter as cancelled.”

9)The defendant himself advised the plaintiff to furnish declaratory decree from the competent civil court to effect change in the date of birth.

10)The plaintiff as Pw.1 stated his case that he filed Passport 6AS 266-15 application through an agent and he relied on such agent totally for getting the passport and he obtained passport issued by the defendant and he did not realise and he went to Dubai and delivered the passport to his employer, who retained the passport with him and with the help of somebody, he came back to India and such passport obtained for returning to India was found to be fake and the plaintiff was convicted for such offence. We are not concerned about the misdeeds committed by the plaintiff under compulsion or under the circumstances in which he was at that time. We are concerned here in this case what is the true date of birth of the petitioner and his name and his father's name. So far as the name of the plaintiff and his father's name are concerned, the mistake is only with regard to spelling in the names. We have to consider whether the plaintiff can establish his date of birth and his name and his father;s name as contended by the plaintiff.

pw.1 filed the documents Ex A.1 is the original SSC certificate showing the date of birth of the plaintiff as 25.06.1978. It is an authenticated document with regard to date of birth of the plaintiff, his name and also his father's name. It is not known how the defendant issued passport to the plaintiff without furnishing Ex

A.1 with regard to his name, his father's name and date of birth.

Whatever it may be, it was happened.

11)Ex A.2 is the Aadhar Card of the plaintiff with name and date of birth and father's name as claimed by the plaintiff. Ex A.3 is the

Election Card, Ex A.4 is the Pan Card. They do support the case 7AS 266-15 of the plaintiff with regard to his date of birth name and father's name.

12)When the court is asked to declare the date of birth of the plaintiff as 25.06.1978 and his name is Mohammed Abdul

Qayyum and his father's name as Mohammed Abdul Rahim and so he establishes the same by means of cogent evidence, the court has to declare the same The reasoning given by the Trial Court that Article 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution are to be invoked is concerned, it is not sustainable. Declaration of date of birth will not be given by the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble

Supreme Court in exercising of Writ jurisdiction. It is the civil court that has to declare the same. The trial Court has not exercised its power vested in it.

13)The Trial Court having referred to circular dt. 29.10.2007 it has misunderstood the same. Since there is no specific provision in the Passport Act or the Rules made thereunder with regard to correction of any particulars in the Passport, more particularly date of birth or spelling mistakes in name or father's name, the circular dt. 29.10.2007 was issued. There is no statutory provision or rule prohibiting altogether any sort of corrections in the passport with regard to particulars mentioned therein. The above circular was issued to make necessary corrections giving discretion to the Passport Issuing Authority and also kept some bar. It is useful to extract the said circular.

8AS 266-15 “(a) Where an applicant claims clerical/technical mistake in the entry relating to birth/place of birth in the passport as asks for rectification/correction; In all such cases the documents produced earlier as proof of date of ate of birth/place of birth at the time of issue of passport may be perused (if not already destroyed) by PIA.

In case, it is a clerical mistake either by the applicant or the PLA, date/place of birth correction may be allowed by issue of fresh passport booklet; in the former case, by charging fee for fresh passport and in the latter, 'gratis'. There is no need for declaratory court order in such cases.

(b) Where a competent authority which issued a birth certificate or an educational certificate, issues any correction or amendment in date /place of birth, PIA may effect the necessary amendment in the passport without insisting on a Court order provided the same document was produced earlier with the passport application. Fresh fees will be charged.

(c) Where files have already been destroyed, PIAs could use their discretion in correction of date of birth without a Court order, where such correction is only in months (not more than two years) and applicants provide satisfactory explanation that the same document(s) was provided at the time of initial passport application.

Fresh fees will be charged.

(d)Where the initial entry has been made on the basis of a supportive document issued by one competent authority I.e school/educational authority and the applicant subsequently requests for a change on the basis of a certificate issued by another competent authority I.e Municipal authorities etc., resulting in conflicting documents for valid proof, the PIA should direct the applicant to procure an order from a First Class Judicial Magistrate, to effect the change as per Passport Manual 2001 (In some States, this function is discharged by Civil Magistrate)

(e) For those born on or after 26.01.1989, birth certificate is the only approved document, as already prescribed.' 9AS 266-15

14)So, the law does not prohibit correction of date of birth or name or father's name. On the other hand, administration circular enables the authority to make correction in specified categories and giving restricted power. It is not a case that the defendant has stated that it has no power at all to deal with the matter. Law can be read to be useful to suit the situation. Hyper technicalities cannot be read into law to defeat the purpose of law.

15)Considering the evidence produced by the plaintiff, it can be said that the case of the plaintiff that his date of birth is 25.06.1978 and his name is Mohammed Abdul Quayyum and his father's name is Mohammed Abdul Rahim, is proved.

16)When the said facts are proved, there is no impediment to grant declaration of the facts proved. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is to be decreed. The Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. We are not concerned about prior conduct of the plaintiff. It will not change the real fact. Therefore, I hold the point that the declaration sought for by the plaintiff can be issued.

17)In the result, the appeal is allowed without costs setting aside the judgment and decree dt. 18.06.2015 in OS No. 886 of 2015 passed by IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed declaring the date of birth of the plaintiff is 25.06.1978 but not 12.06.1975, the plaintiff's name is Mohammed Abdul Quayyum but not Mohammed Abdul Qayyum 10AS 266-15 and plaintiff''s father name is Mohammed Abdul Rahim but not

Mohammed Abdul Raheem.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 28th day of APRIL, 2016.

Sd/-

(P V Ramana Rayalu) 1I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE City Civil Court, Hyderabad

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – CUM –

CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURTS : HYDERABAD

Friday, the 29th day of APRIL, 2016

Present: Sri P.V.RAMANA RAYALU

CHAIRMAN, MACT – cum –

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

O.P.No.2024 of 2013

Between:

1. Y.Bashaiah

2. Y.Manga ... Petitioners

AND

1. M/s RMN Infrastractures Limited, Rep. by R.Maheswar Naidu Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Manager, Sagar Plaza,

Abids Road, Hyderabad. ... Respondents

This Petition coming on 28­4­2016 for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri K.Anand Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners, of Sri 

B.Jagal Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.1, and of Sri K.S.N.Prasad, 

Advocate for Respondent No.2, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:–

O R D E R

1)This claim petition was filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/­ for the death of their daughter Y.Ruchitha aged five years, in the motor accident that was taken place on 3­8­2013 at about 11:00 a.m. near A.G. College Main Gate, 

NH.7.

2)The material averments of the petition are that on 3­8­2013 at 

Page - 2 MVOP2024-13dth about 11:00 a.m. the deceased sat on the Tractor bearing No.AP 29TB 6236 near AG College main gate NH.7 and at that time Bolero Car bearing No. AP 28TD 2333 driven in rash and negligent manner and in high speed and in high speed and lost control over the vehicle and dashed the tractor from its behind and due to which the deceased fell down from the tractor and the tractor moved front side and ran over the deceased girl, who was shifted to 

Hospital and the doctors declared her dead. The Police, Rajendranagar registered a case in crime No.641/2013. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and second respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. Hence, the petition was filed.

3)First respondent filed counter stating that the material averments of the petition are neither true in fact nor tenable in law. The vehicle was insured with second respondent and the insurance policy is valid from 13­ 10­2012 to 12­10­2013. The allegations in the petition about accident are false. Even according to the facts in the FIR, the deceased was said to have made to sit on the mudguard of the tractor, which was under use by GHMC people, who were undertaking road repair works involving the petitioners as labourers. Due to negligence of them and the tractor driver, the incident was happened. The petitioners in connivance with Police Rajendranagar foisted the case. The compensation claimed is high and no details were given for claiming such amount. First respondent's vehicle was not involved in the accident. In any case, the second respondent is liable to pay compensation. It has been prayed for dismissal of the case against the first 

Page - 3 MVOP2024-13dth respondent.

4)Second respondent filed the counter not admitting the accident and driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and particulars of policy and driving license if any subsisting at the time of accident and police have not followed Section158 (6) of Motor Vehicles Act and first respondent not followed Section 134 (c) of Motor Vehicles Act and the claim is high and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5)Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 28TD 2333 causing the death of Y.Ruchitha?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensa­ tion? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3) To what relief?

6)In order to establish the case, the first petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs A­1 to A­5 documents. RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex B­1 was marked for the respondent.

7)ISSUE No.1: PW.1 in his evidence stated that on 3­8­2013 at about 11:00 a.m. his daughter sat on the tractor bearing No.AP 29TB 6236 near AG College main gate and at that time Bolero car bearing No.AP 28 TD 2333 dashed the tractor from behind driven in high speed, rashly and 

Page - 4 MVOP2024-13dth negligently. Ex A­1 is the copy of FIR in crime No.641/2013 registered at 

SHO, Rajendranagar PS on the report given by Y.Bashaiah (PW.1). Ex A­2 is the copy of charge sheet filed for the offence under Section 304­A IPC against one Chinnapaga Anjaneyulu. Ex A­3 is the copy of inquest report. 

Ex A­4 is the copy of postmortem examination report. Ex A­5 is copy of motor vehicle inspector report with an opinion that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle.

8)The above evidence of PW.1 and the documents go to show that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Bolero car. Hence, I hold issue No.1 positively.

9)ISSUE No.2: RW.1 stated in his evidence that second respondent issued policy bearing No.1802722334000705 dated 13­10­ 2012 in respect of goods vehicle bearing No.AP 28TD 2133. He also stated that particulars available on record show that driving license issued by RTA, Mahaboobnagar and the driver was only permitted to drive non­transport vehicle and the crime vehicle is a goods vehicle. 

The driver ought to have carried transport license to drive to drive the vehicle.

10)RW.2 stated in his evidence that his company investigator obtained driving license particulars No.8­653/AG/87 issued by licensing authority, Agra dated 10­5­2012 and is valid upto 9­5­2015 and it shows that the driver is only permitted to drive MGWGR 

Page - 5 MVOP2024-13dth (medium goods vehicle with gear). He also mentioned in the chief­ examination affidavit that driver and the owner of the vehicle committed breach in using the vehicle at the time of accident. In cross­ examination he stated that he does not know any mechanism of the vehicle.

11)The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the 

Judgment in S.Iyyapan vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another reported in 2013 ACJ 1944. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 17 that the heading insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks given in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 itself shows the intention of the legislature to make third party insurance compulsory and to ensure that the victims of accident arising out of use of motor vehicles would be able to get compensation for the death or injuries suffered. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 18 observed that on reading the provisions of Secs. 146 and 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, it is evidently clear that in certain circumstances, the insurer's right is safeguarded, but in any event the insurer has to pay compensation, when a valid certificate of insurance is issued, notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. It is also further observed that the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a license to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used 

Page - 6 MVOP2024-13dth as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving license.

12)There is no evidence placed before the Court that the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods vehicle as stated by RW.1. 

Even if it is so, according to the evidence of RW.2, the driver was holding license to drive medium goods vehicle with gear. Therefore, the contentions raised by the second respondent through the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 are not acceptable and therefore, rejected. The respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

13)Since the deceased was five years old girl, multiplier '15' applies. The notional income of the deceased girl is taken as 

Rs.30,000/­ p.a. So, it comes to Rs.4,50,000/­. Since the petitioners are parents, 50% is to be deducted. So, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,25,000/­. The following heads of compensation can be awarded to the petitioners.

(i)Loss of dependency .. Rs. 2,25,000­00

(ii)Funeral Expenses .. Rs. 10,000­00

(iii)Loss of love and affection, transport, etc. .. Rs. 65,000­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Total .. Rs. 3,00,000­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

The petitioners claimed reasonable amount as compensation, which can be awarded. I answer issue No.2 accordingly, that the petitioners are 

Page - 7 MVOP2024-13dth entitled to such compensation from the respondents 1 and 2 with reasonable rate of interest.

14)ISSUE No.3: In the result, the petition is allowed with costs for 

Rs.3,00,000/­ with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till today and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realisation directing respondents 1 and 2 to pay the same. The petitioners 1 and 2 shall share the compensation equally. 

On deposit made by the respondents, the petitioners can withdraw the same since it is a small amount. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/­.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by 

him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 29th day of APRIL, 2016. Sd/­ (P.V.Ramana Rayalu) CHAIRMAN, MACT – cum –

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Petitioner : For respondent :

Pw.1 : Y Bashaiah Rw.1 : U Bharani Kumar

Rw.2 : T.Prashanth Singh

Documents Marked

For the Petitioner :

Ex A.1 : CC of F.I.R

Ex A.2 : C.C of Charge Sheet

Ex A.3 : C.C of Inquest Report

Ex A.4 : C.C. of P.M.E Report

Ex A.5 : C.C of M.V.I Report

For respondent :

Ex B.1 : Copy of Policy Sd/­ (P.V.Ramana Rayalu) CHAIRMAN, MACT – cum –

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

Page - 8 MVOP2024-13dth

1OP 2795-11

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – CUM –

CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURTS : HYDERABAD

Thursday, the 28th day of APRIL, 2016

Present: Sri P.V.RAMANA RAYALU

CHAIRMAN, MACT – cum –

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

O.P.No. 2795 of 2011

Between:

N. Bala Swamy... Petitioner

AND

1. M/s Yochit Impex Rep. by G. Madhusudhan Reddy

2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Rep. by its Manager (Legal), IV Floor, Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad

... Respondents

This Petition coming on 25-04-2016 for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri E.Madan Mohan Reddy

Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Sri G.Srinivasa Charyulu Advocate

for Respondent No.2, and respondent No.1 having been set ex parte,

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

O R D E R

1)This claim petition was filed by the petitioner under Sections 166 & 163-A of M V Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries received by the petitioner in the motor accident that was taken place on 19.02.2011 at about 8.30 a.m. near Anjaneya

Swamy Temple.

2OP 2795-11

2)The material averments of the petition are that on 19.02.2011 at about 8.30 a.m, the petitioner was proceeding in Swift car bearing

No. AP 29 BK 909 along with others towards Hyderabad and on the way on reaching near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, one innova car bearing No. AP 09 BJ 2557 came in opposite direction driven in rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed the car of the petitioner, resulting grievous injuries to the petitioner and other inmates of the car. Immediately they were shifted to Apollo DRDO

Hospital for treatment. One of the inmates of the car died in the hospital. The petitioner was shifted to Woodlands Hospital,

Hyderabad for treatment and the petitioner is still undergoing treatment as out-patient. The police Amangal P.S registered a case in Crime No. 25/2011 under sections 304-A & 338 IPC against the driver of the Innova Car. The petitioner was working as cashier in

M/s Dhanalakshmi Petrol Pump, Tukkuguda on a monthly salary of

Rs.6,000/- and Rs.50/- per day as batta. Due to the injuries received by the petitioner in the accident, he underwent prolonged treatment from 20.02.2011 to 25.02.2011 and he underwent surgery on 21.02.2011. He was advised to bed rest for three months. The petitioner was 23 years old at that time and he lost earnings. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the insurer of the innova Car. Hence the petition was filed.

3)The first respondent remained exparte.

4)The second respondent filed the counter not admitting the allegations of the petition and denied the accident proper and 3OP 2795-11 treatment taken by the petitioner and rash and negligent driving of the Innova Car. It was contended that the accident was occurred due to sole/contributory negligence of the driver of the Swift Car.

The second respondent has denied coverage of insurance by insurance policy. The second respondent also denied the amounts mentioned in the proforma about claim. The first respondent has not followed Section 134 (c) of M V Act and police have not followed

Section 158(6) of M V Act. The claim is high. It has been prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor accident with the car bearing No. AP 09 BJ 2557 due to th rash and negligent driving by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3) To what relief?

6)In order to establish the case, the petitioner himself was examined as Pw.1 and got marked Exs A.1 to A.6 documents.

7) ISSUE No.1 : Pw.1 in his chief examination stated that on 19.02.2011 he was proceeding in Swift Car bearing No. AP 29 BK 909 along with others towards Hyderabad and on the way when reaching near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, one Innova Car bearing No.

AP 09 BJ 2557 came from opposite direction driven rashly and 4OP 2795-11 negligently in high speed and dashed their car and he sustained injuries. He also stated that he was immediately shifted to Appollo

DRDO Hospital for treatment and thereafter shifted to Woodlands

Hospital, Hyderabad, where he underwent surgery on 21.02.2011 for fracture of Shaft of left Femur and fracture of distal of radius of right arm and he was asked to take bed rest for three months and further on 31.03.2011, 04.03.2011 and on 07.07.2011 he underwent treatment as out-patient and he spent a sum of

Rs.50,000/-towards medical expenses in addition to the reimbursement under 'Arogyasree' Scheme.

8)Ex A.1 is the copy of the F.I.R in Crime No. 25/2011 registered by S.H.O Amangal P.S, Mahaboobnagar District, on the report given by Nakka Vijaya Vardhani. As per this FIR while they were proceeding in the Swift Desire car after crossing Kadthal village near

Anjaneeya Swamy Temple the accident was taken place and her sister died in the accident and Driver Srikanth and Balu received bleeding injuries. Ex A.2 is the copy of the Charge sheet filed against one Gutha Madhusudan Reddy for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC. Ex A.3 is the copy of the Wound

Certificate issued by Woodlands Hospital, Hyderabad that the petitioner received three injuries as follows: 1) Injury Left Thigh X- ray showed Fracture Shaft of left femur, 2) Fracture Distal Radius and 3) Blunt Injury Over Chest. Ex A.5 is the Discharge Summary, that the petitioner was admitted into their hospital on 20.02.2011 and discharged on 25.02.2011 and surgery was done on 21.02.2011 5OP 2795-11 and the case was taken up under Rajeev Arogyasree Scheme.

9)The above documents and the evidence of Pw.1 clearly established the fact that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Innova Car, resulting in death of a person and injuries to petitioner and another person. I answer issue No.1 accordingly.

10) ISSUE No.2 :- The petitioner stated that he spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenditure in addition to the reimbursement of

Arogyasree scheme. The evidence of Pw.1 in that regard is not acceptable. He filed Ex A.6 bill issued by Apollo DRDO Hospital for

Rs.6,000/-. Except that bill he did not produce any document showing expenditure. Perhaps, he did not incur any expenditure since his case was taken under Arogyasree scheme. The petitioner filed Ex A.4 Salary Certificate that he worked as Cashier and used to get salary of Rs.6,000/- per month and his services were terminated w.e.f 19.02.2011 due to accident. So, this certificate discloses that as soon as the petitioner met with an accident, his services were terminated by the employer.

11)In cross examination Pw.1 stated that after the accident he worked in the same filling station for about one year eight months and thereafter his services were terminated. So, Ex A.4 is a false certificate about the services of Pw.1. In view of the fact that the petitioner continuously worked with the same employer for about 6OP 2795-11 one year eight months after the accident and still he is working with some other employer, there is no permanent disability affecting the earnings of the petitioner. So, no amount can be awarded for loss of earnings.

12)Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the following heads of compensation can be awarded to the petitioner.

For Pain and Suffering Rs. 75,000/- For medical expensesRs. 6,000/- For Extra nourishment, transport Rs. 10,000/- and unaccounted expenditure For loss of earnings for three months Rs. 9,000/- TOTAL Rs.1,00,000/-

Rs.1,00,000/- is just and reasonable compensation, the petitioner is entitled from the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 with reasonable rate of interest. I hold issue No.2 accordingly.

13) ISSUE No.3 : In the result, the petition is allowed in part for

Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till today and thereafter @ 6% per annum till payment directing the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to pay the same, The rest of the petition claim is dismissed without costs.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade I, transcribed and typed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28th day of April, 2016.

Sd/-

(P V Ramana Rayalu) II Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad 7OP 2795-11

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the petitioner: For the Respondents :

Pw.1 : N. Bala SwamyNIL

Documents Marked

For the Petitioner :

Ex A.1 : CC of F.I.R

Ex A.2 : CC of Charge Sheet

Ex A.3 : CC of Injury Certificate

Ex A.4 : CC of Original Salary Certificate

Ex A.5 : Original Discharge Summary

Ex A.6 : Medical Bills

For Respondents :

NIL

Sd/-

(P V Ramana Rayalu) II Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad

1OP 2249-13

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – CUM –

CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURTS : HYDERABAD

Friday, the 29th day of APRIL, 2016

Present: Sri P.V.RAMANA RAYALU

CHAIRMAN, MACT – cum –

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

O.P.No. 2249 of 2013

Between: P. Kalyan being minor represented

by his mother P Laxmi W/o P Srinu... Petitioner

AND

1. M. Shiva Kumar

2. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad

... Respondents

This Petition coming on 27-04-2016 for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri U Praveen Kumar,

Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Sri M.Guruduth, Advocate for

Respondent No.2 and 1st respondent having been set ex parte, and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1)This claim petition was filed for the minor petitioner represented by his mother claiming compensation under Section 166 of M V Act and R/W Section 163-A of M V Act, a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries received by the petitioner in the motor accident that was taken place on 23.02.2013 at about 4.00 p.m. near vegetable market Talakondapally.

2)The material averments of the petition are that on 23.02.2013 2OP 2249-13 at about 4.00 P.M the injured along with his grand mother went to vegetable market and they were standing at the side of the road, one

Tata Indica Car bearing No. AP 27S 5489 came from Shadnagar side in high speed driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner, who sustained grievous injuries to left leg immediately he was shifted to Govt. Hospital from there to Sai Prem Multi speciality

Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. The petitioner sustained crush injury to left foot with tibia dislocation and surgery was conducted and he was discharged on 26.03.2013. Still the petitioner is suffering from disability and lost his education. The police Talakondapally registered a case in crime No. 22/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the insurer of the vehicle against whom the petition is filed.

3) The first respondent remained exparte.

4) The second respondent filed the counter not admitting the insurance policy number, coverage of insurance to the Tata Indica

Car bearing No. AP 27S 5489, age of the petitioner and he receiving injuries in the accident and denied involvement of the said car in the accident and the negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata

Indica Car. The first respondent has not followed Section 134 (c) of

M V Act and the police have not followed Section 158 (6) of M.V Act.

The claim is high and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

3OP 2249-13

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

1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Indica car No. AP 27S 5489 causing injuries to the petitioner ?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3) To what relief?

6)In order to establish the case, the petitioner's mother was examined as Pw.1 and examined Pws.2 to Pw.4 and got marked Exs

A.1 to A.8 documents. Ex B.1 copy of the insurance policy was marked for the 2nd respondent.

7) ISSUE No.1:- Pw.2 stated that on 23.02.2013 she along with her grand son P Kalyan went to vegetable market for purchasing vegetables at Talakondapally and at that time one Tata Indica Car bearing No. AP 27 5489 was driven in high speed rashly and negligently and dashed the petitioner, who was standing with her on extreme left side of the road and as a result, he fell down and sustained bleeding injuries to his left leg ankle and other injuries all over the body.

8)Pw.4 stated that he is general physician running hospital by name Sai Prem Multi Speciality Hospital since 2012 and one patient by name Kalyan was admitted under his care on 24.02.2013 who sustained injuries in RTA and he along with Dr. Zia-ur- 4OP 2249-13

Rahman , Orthopedician treated the patient and the said patient sustained Crush injury to right foot fracture and dislocation of tibia, the patient was operated with would debridement with externs or tendon repair done and the patient was discharged on 05.03.2013 and patient paid an amount of Rs.14,950/- towards final bill and Exs A.3 to A.6 were issued by their hospital.

9)Ex A.1 is the copy of the F.I.R in Crime No.22 of 2013 of

Talakondapally Police Station on the report given by one Mudavath

Desva Naik, Ex A.2 is the copy of the Charge Sheet filed for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC against one Vepuri Balraj

Goud, Ex A.3 is the Medical Legal Case Record mentioning fresh deep lacerated wound on the left foot and dislocation of tibia joint and tendon injuries of left foot. Ex A.4 is patient card. Exs A.5 &

A.6 are medical bills and Ex A.8 is X-ray Film. The above documents and evidence of Pws.2 & 4 clearly established the fact that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver resulting in grievous injuries to the petitioner. I answer issue No.1 positively.

10) ISSUE No.2 : Pw.1 stated that patient was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was studying 3rd standard, due to this accident he lost his academic year and suffering from partial and permanent disability, pain and suffering and he is limping and there was a stiffness of movement in his left leg. He needs further surgery for skin grafting and she filed medical bills for Rs.55,953/-.

5OP 2249-13

11)Pw.3, Assistant Professor stated that he examined the petitioner on 16.09.2015, who came with pain in his left leg and he has gone through the old record of Sri Prem Hospital where the petitioner was treated to crush injury and he has issued Ex A.7 certificate that patient was suffering from disability of 20% of permanent in nature. In cross examination Pw.3 stated that he has not treated the patient before issuing Ex A.7 Disability Certificate.

So the disability certificate Ex A.7 cannot be relied upon.

12) The petitioner filed Exs A.5 & A.6 bills Exs A.5 & A.6 are accounting for Rs.55,953/-.

13) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the following heads of compensation can be awarded to the petitioner.

For Pain and Suffering Rs. 75,000/- For medical expensesRs. 56,000/- For Extra nourishment, transport Rs. 15,000/- and unaccounted expenditure

TOTAL Rs.1,46,000/- rounded to Rs.1,50,000/-, that is just and reasonable compensation, the petitioner is entitled from the respondent Nos.

1 & 2 with reasonable rate of interest. I hold issue No.2 accordingly.

13) ISSUE No.3 : In the result, the petition is allowed in part for

Rs.1,50,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per 6OP 2249-13 annum from the date of petition till today and thereafter @ 6% per annum till payment directing the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to pay the same, The rest of the petition claim is dismissed without costs.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade I, transcribed and typed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29th day of April, 2016.

Sd/-

(P V Ramana Rayalu) II Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the petitioner: For the Respondents :

Pw.1 : P LaxmiNIL

Pw.2 : Mudavath Bujji

Pw.3 : Dr Krishna Reddy

Pw.4 : B. Hemlal

Documents Marked

For the Petitioner :

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

Ex A.2 is the copy of the Charge Sheet

Ex A.3 is the Medical Legal Case Record

Ex A.4 is Out patient card.

Ex A.5 is medical bill

Ex A.6 is medial bill

Ex A.7 is the disability Certificate

Ex A.8 is X-ray Film

For respondent :

Ex B.1 : Copy of the Insurance Policy

Sd/-

(P V Ramana Rayalu) II Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad

1CMA 76-13

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURTS : HYDERABAD

Friday, the 29th day of APRIL, 2016 Present: Sri P.V.RAMANA RAYALU

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

CMA.No.76 of 2013

Between:

1. Sadiq Ali

2. Shaheen...Appellants/Petitioners/Plaintiffs

AND

1. Feroz Ali

2. Smt Meher Banu ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER AND DECRETAL ORDER DATED 12­03­2013 PASSED BY THE III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT 

HYDERABAD

I.A.No.840 of 2012 in

O.S.No.2505 of 2012

Between:

1. Sadiq Ali

2. Shaheen …...... Petitioners/Plaintiffs

AND

1. Feroz Ali

2. Smt Meher Banu ... Respondents/Defendants

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal coming on this for final hearing and disposal before me in presence of Sri Ravi Prakash Misra, Advocate for the appellants and of Sri Mohd. Latif Qureshi, Advocate for the respondents, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1)This appeal arises from the Order and Decretal Order dated 12­03­ 2CMA 76-13 2013 in I.A.No.840 of 2012 in O.S.No.2505 of 2012 passed by the III 

Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The Appellants are the petitioners in IA No. 840 of 2012 and plaintiffs in the suit. By the impugned order and decretal order IA No. 840 of 2012 was dismissed which was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the ingress and egress of the petitioners to the petition schedule property during the pendency of the suit. The petition schedule property was mentioned as items A & B belonged to plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2, respectively.

2)For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter will be referred as arrayed in IA 840 of 2012.

3)The first petitioner filed the affidavit annexed to the said petition stating that petitioners are brother and sister and children of Sri Abdul Ali and the petitioners acquired the right, title and interest in respect of the property bearing No. 19­2­201 Part of Ramnastpura, Hyderabad under a 

Memorandum of oral gift/Hibanama executed on 07.06.1997 under two separate documents. Petitioners' predecessor in title Sri Nadir Ali purchased the property from one Faroz Ali and Smt Meher Banu under document dt. 03.08.1989 and 04.08.1989. The claim of the petitioners is based on oral Hibanama, which was executed by Nadir Ali. The respondents themselves sold the properties under respective sale deeds and the respondents are trying to interfere and extending threats that they would make constructions in the common passage and obstruct their ingress and egress to the property, which they are not entitled to. On 3CMA 76-13 04.11.2012 the petitioners were not allowed to get into their properties. 

The petitioners have got valid right vested in them by virtue of title to the property to use their common passage as provided by registered document cannot be disturbed by the respondents. Hence, the petition was filed. 

4) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the first respondent for himself and on behalf of the 2nd respondent, who is his wife denying the averments of the affidavit of the first petitioner. It was contended inter alia that without declaration of easementary rights a suit for injunction is not maintainable. It was admitted that respondents executed registered sale deed, but the petitioners have no right to use the said common passage as the same belonged to respondents only. The petitioners pleaded false hibanama and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 

5)Exs P.1 to P.4 documents marked for the petitioners and Exs R.1 & 

R.2 documents were marked for the respondents. The Trial Court considered the documents and pleas and held that there is no prima facie proof of the cause of action and the petitioners are at liberty to prove their case in the main suit and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred this appeal. 

6)During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Trial Court for fresh hearing.

4CMA 76-13

7)Now the point for consideration is whether the matter has to be remanded back to the Trial Court for re­hearing IA No. 840 of 2012?

8) POINT : IA 2057 of 2013 was filed by the appellants under Order 26 

Rule 9 CPC praying the court to appoint an advocate commissioner to ascertain & note down physical features of the Schedule I & II properties. 

9)Un­numbered IA of 2015 was filed by the appellants under Order 41 

Rule 27 R/W Section 151 CPC praying the court to receive certain documents such as 1) Declaration 2) Petty case charge sheet, 3) Out patient slips and 4) A.P Police Personal Bond

10)IA No. 1169 of 2013 was filed by the respondents/defendants under 

Order 41 Rule 27 R/W section 151 CPC to receive the documents as 

additional evidence in the appeal.

11)During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the appellants as well as respondents filed documents in the appeal, the petition needs fresh hearing. The learned counsel for the respondents also conceded to such request. 

12)Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties and both parties filed documents to substantiate their case and also filed an application for appointment of commissioner to note down the physical features of the properties. I am of the considered view that instead of receiving the documents filed by both parties in this appeal and 5CMA 76-13 appreciating the same along with the documents already filed before the 

Trial Court, it is better to get re­heard by the Trial Court again and adjudicate on the questions of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury and pass necessary orders. Therefore, I hold the point in the affirmative. 

13)In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order and decreetal order dt. 12.03.2013 in IA No. 840 of 2012 in OS No. 2505 of 2012 passed by the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by remanding the matter to the Trial Court to re­hear the IA 840 of 2012 afresh and pass orders according to law. The petitioners can file an application for appointment of advocate commissioner before the Trial 

Court in the suit. The documents filed by both parties in the appeal can be taken back by the parties and file them before the Trial Court. Both parties shall bear their own costs. 

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade­I, transcribed and typed by him, 

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 29th day of 

APRIL, 2016.

Sd/­ (P V Ramana Rayalu)

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

City Civil Court, Hyderabad