Sri P.V.S.Suryanarayana Murthy

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­

IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present: Sri P.V.S.Suryanarayana Murthy, Chairman­cum­IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor. FAC Chairman­cum­VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor

Monday, the 15th (Fifteenth) day of June, 2020

MV OP No. 320 of 2016

Dowla ….Petitioner

Vs.

1. Kotla @ Chand Basha

2. S.Mohaboob Basha

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kurnool. Rep., by its Branch Manager.

4. Pakala Narasimhulu

5. N.P.Manjula

6. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Chittoor rep., by its Branch Manager. ….Respondents

This petition is coming on 27.05.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Jyothi Ram and M.Suresh Singh, Advocates for the petitioner and of Sri M.Subramanyam Reddy, Advocate for respondents 3 and 6 and Sri S.Anandhan, Advocate for 4th respondent and the respondents 1, 2, and 5 remained exparte and upon hearing their arguments through Video Conference and the matter is having stood over for consideration, this Court passed the following:­

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner/injured U/sec.166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/­ with interest and costs for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:­

 The petitioner is a lorry driver. On 18.05.2012 at about 2.40 AM the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 6777 driven by the 4th respondent was coming to

Chittoor from Hyderabad and when the said bus reached Ramapurammitta of 2

Duvvur Mandal, the lorry bearing No.AP 21 W 2918 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash/negligent manner dashed the bus, as a result the petitioner who was in the bus sustained bleeding injuries and the bus also got damaged. The petitioner who was spare driver of the said bus after completion of the work was taken rest inside the bus. Basing on the complaint the police Duvvur registered a case against the 1st respondent in

Cr.No.85/2012 and also filed charge sheet. The petitioner got admitted in the Government Hospital, Proddatur and taken first aid and due to serious injuries he was shifted to SVIMS, Tirupati and as per the advise of the doctors he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Aragonda. The petitioner had taken treatment from 18.05.2012 to 28.05.2012 as inpatient in Aragonda Apollo

Hospital. The petitioner has sustained the following injuries.

1. Communated fracture of right tibia.

2. Displaced fracture of left tibia.

3. Grossly displaced fracture of left fibula.

The petitioner had spent Rs.10 lakhs for his medical treatment, extra­ nourishment, transport and attendant charges. After discharge from the hospital he was confined to bed rest and spending huge amount for his medical treatment and also taken physiotherapy treatment as per the advise of the doctors of Apollo Hospital, Aragonda. In spite of effective treatment he is not able to squat on the floor and do brisk walking and he is unable to move without there being any support and he is unable to attend the driving work. The wife and children of the petitioner depending on his income.

Hence, this petition.

3

3. The respondent No.1, 2 and 5 remained exparte. The respondent No.3 filed written statement and the brief contentions are as follows:­

The driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license to drive the vehicle and the petitioner is not entitled to travel in the vehicle bearing

No.AP 03 x 6777. In SVIMS Tirupati the treatment will be given free of cost.

The manner of the accident as mentioned in the petition is incorrect. The petitioner is not a paid passenger as per the permit issued to the bus and there is no provision for a person to take rest inside the bus and therefore, the policy issued by the company will not cover the risk of the petitioner.

There is violation of the policy condition and the 3rd respondent company is not liable to pay any amount. The non mention of the name and address of the attendant will disclose the falsity of the claim of the petitioner. If the 5th respondent does not contest the case, the 3rd respondent may be permitted to contest the case. The petitioner has to file an affidavit that he has not filed any other case claiming compensation. It is prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

a) The 4th respondent filed the written statement and the brief contentions are as follows:­

The accident took place not due to the negligent driving of the 4th respondent. On 18.05.2012 at about 2.40 AM the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 6777 driven by the 4th respondent was coming Kadapa – Kurnool National

High Way and when it reached Ramapurammitta of Duvvur Mandal, the lorry bearing No.AP 21 W 2918 driven by the 1st respondent dashed left side of the bus, as a result the 4th respondent and others sustained multiple and fracture 4 injuries and bus also badly damaged. The petitioner and other inmates of the bus were shifted to the Government Hospital, Proddatur. The petitioner is spare driver for the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 6777 and working under the 5th respondent. The 1st respondent who is the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 21 W 2918, its owner and insurance company are liable to pay the compensation. It is prayed to dismiss the petition with costs against the 4th respondent.

b) The 6th respondent filed the written statement and the brief contentions are as follows:­

The driver of the crime vehicle had no valid driving license. The registration certificate not in the name of the insured and that there is no valid permit for the vehicle and hence, the policy issued by the 6th respondent company was not in force. Therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The petitioner is not the paid passenger and as per the permit issued to the bus there is no provision for a person to take rest inside the bus and therefore, the policy issued by the company will not cover risk of the person who is not entitled to travel in the bus. Hence, the 6th respondent is not liable to pay any amount towards compensation. If the 5th respondent does not contest the case, the 6th respondent may be permitted to contest the case. It is prayed to dismiss the petition against the 6th respondent. 

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the then officer on 08.11.2017.

1)  Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 21 W 2978 or the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 6777?

5

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

3) To what relief?

5. During trial, the petitioner himself got examined as PW1, one

B.Sridhar, Dr Y.K.Siva Reddy and Munirajulu Naidu as PW2 to PW4 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. After closure of the petitioner evidence, the respondent No.4 himself got examined as RW1. Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are marked with the consent of both the counsel.

6. After closure of the evidence, heard the arguments through Video

Conference. 

The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was working as driver under 5th respondent and on 18.05.2012, the bus bearing

No.AP 03 X 6777 was coming from Hyderabad to Chittoor and when they reached Ramapurammitta of Duvvur Mandal, the lorry bearing No.AP 21 W 2918 driven by the 1st respondent dashed the bus, due to which the petitioner who was inside the bus sustained injuries. He has further submitted that the evidence of PW1 is supported by the evidence of PW4 and also RW1. He has further submitted that the documents produced by the petitioner proves that he has spent huge amount towards medical expenses and the evidence of

PW1 shows that the petitioner is a spare driver and after completion of duty he was taking rest inside the bus. He prays to allow the petition by awarding compensation.

a) Per contra, the counsel for the respondents 3 and 6 has submitted that the petitioner is not a paid passenger and he is not the driver of the vehicle at 6 the time of accident and hence, he is not entitled for any compensation. He has further submitted that as per Ex.B1 policy condition the driver and passengers are entitled for compensation in case of accident, but the petitioner neither a driver nor paid passenger at the time of accident. He prays to dismiss the petition.

b) The 4th respondent counsel has submitted that due to rash/negligent driving of the 1st respondent the accident was occurred and the 4th respondent was driving the vehicle on the left side of the road and he is not responsible for the accident. He prays to dismiss the petition against the 4th respondent.

7. ISSUE No.1:­

 Issue No.1 is recasted as follows:­

Whether the accident occurred due to rash/negligent driving of the driver

of the lorry bearing No.AP 21 W 2918 or the driver of the bus bearing

No.AP 03 X 6777?

The version of the petitioner is that the petitioner is spare driver of the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 6777 and after completion of the duty when he was taking rest in the bus and the bus reached near Ramapuram Mitta of Duvuru

Mandal, the lorry bearing No.AP 21 W 2918 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash/negligent manner dashed the bus, due to which the inmates sustained injuries.

a) The PW1 who is the injured has specifically stated that on 18.05.2012 at about 2.40 AM, the 1st respondent being the driver of the lorry bearing

No.AP 21 W 2918 driven the lorry in a rash/negligent manner and dashed the left side of the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 6777, as a result he sustained 7 injuries. Thus the PW1 who is the injured and eye witness has specifically stated regarding manner of the accident. Immediately after the accident the petitioner and other injured were shifted to Government Hospital, Proddatur and from there to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati and later the petitioner admitted in Apollo Hospital, Aragonda.

b) Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge sheet. As seen from the record basing on the complaint the Station House

Office, Duvvur registered the case against the 1st respondent and filed the charge sheet against the 1st respondent. Thus the registration of the case against the 1st respondent supports the version of the petitioner that due to negligent act of the 1st respondent who was the driver of the crime lorry bearing No.AP 21 W 2918 the accident was occurred. 

c) The RW1 who is the 4th respondent and driver of the bus bearing

No.AP 03 X 6777 has testified that on 18.05.2012 at about 2.40 AM when the bus driven by him reached Ramapurammitta of Duvvur Mandal, the 1st respondent being the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 21 W 2918 dashed against the left side of the bus and due to which the inmates of the bus sustained injuries including the petitioner. Though PW1 and RW1 were cross­examined at length, nothing could be elicited to show that the accident was occurred due to the fault of RW1. Thus the evidence of PW1 is supported by the evidence of RW1 with regard to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent.

8

d) In the citation reported in 1994 (2) ALT 629 in between

Smt Sukhinder Anand Vs., Khaza Vazir Ali (minor) and others

The Hon’ble High Court has held that the statement given by the accused

before the criminal court is sufficient and he cannot resail from the said

statement about the rash/negligent act.

e) In the citation reported in 2001 ACJ 901 in between

Gouripala Manemma Vs., Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. And

another

The Hon’ble High Court has held that the driver of the crime vehicle is the best witness to speak about the accident.”

In this case on hand the driver of the crime lorry remained exparte and he did not enter into the witness box. The RW1 who is the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 6777 has specifically stated that due to the negligent act of the 1st respondent, the accident was occurred. The police also registered the case against the 1st respondent. In view of the reasons stated above this court finds that the petitioner proved that the accident dt.18.05.2012 occurred due to rash/negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 21 W 2918 i.e., the 1st respondent and the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident. This issue is answered accordingly. 

9

8. ISSUE No.2:­

The petitioner has sustained injuries in the Motor Vehicle Accident.

There is no fault whatever on the part of the petitioner. Ex.B1 is the

Insurance policy for the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 6777 is in force. Ex.B2 policy for the crime lorry bearing No.AP 21 W 2918 is also in force by the date of accident.

a) The version of the respondent Nos.3 and 6 counsel is that the petitioner is not a paid passenger and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. The PW1 has specifically stated that he was working as driver under the 5th respondent and he was a spare driver of the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 6777. The RW1 who is the 4th respondent and driver of the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 6777 has specifically stated in para No.8 of the written statement that the petitioner is spare driver of the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 6777 and worked under the 5th respondent. The RW1 in his chief examination also specifically stated that the petitioner is the spare driver of the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 6777 and worked under the 5th respondent at the time of accident. Thus the RW1 who was the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 6777 has specifically averred in the written statement and also testified in the evidence that the petitioner was the spare driver of the bus and worked under the 5th respondent by the date of accident. Thus the version of the petitioner that he was the spare driver of the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 6777 is supported by the admissions of RW1.

b) The counsel for the respondent No.3 and 6 has submitted that since the petitioner is not a paid passenger and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. In this case on hand this court already held 10 in issue No.1 that due to the negligent act of the 1st respondent the accident was occurred. Since the accident was occurred due to the negligent act of the 1st respondent who was the driver of the crime lorry bearing No.AP 21 W 2918, the driver, owner and insurance company of the crime lorry are liable to pay the compensation. The petitioner is a third party to the crime lorry and he is not the passenger of the lorry. No doubt he was travelling in the bus as a spare driver, but there is no negligence on the part of the 4th respondent and hence the respondents 4 to 6 are not liable to pay any compensation.

c) In the citation reported in

2002 (6) ALD 137 (DB)

in between

New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Madras Vs.,

Malla Reddy and others.

The Hon’ble High Court has held that “when there is a collusion of two vehicles the owner of the vehicle whose driver is at fault and its insurance company are liable to pay compensation.”

Thus for the foregoing reasons, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner is a spare driver of the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 6777 and he is a third party to the crime lorry and hence the respondents 1 to 3 are liable to pay the compensation. 

9. Quantum:

In a clam for compensation basing on the injuries sustained in a motor accident the compensation can be awarded under the following heads:

1) Pain and suffering

2) Nervous shock 11

3) Medical expenses

4) Actual loss of income 

5) Loss of income due to permanent disability

1) Pain & Suffering:­

The petitioner claimed that he has suffered fracture to his right tibia, left tibia and left fibula. PW1 has specifically stated the injuries sustained by him and also treatment taken by him. PW2 who is Dr B.Sridhar has testified that he is working as Orthopedic Surgeon at Apollo Hospital, Aragonda since 2001 and on 18.05.2012 he examined the petitioner and the petitioner had fracture of right tibia,left tibia and fibula. Thus the evidence of PW2 shows that the petitioner sustained fracture injuries. 

a) PW3 Dr Y.K.Siva Reddy who was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon at

Government District Hospital, Proddutur who gave first aid to the petitioner.

Ex.A5 is the discharge summary given by the Apollo Hospital, Aragonda.

Thus the evidence of PW1 is supported by the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and

Ex.A5 and Ex.A6.

b) The PW1 has stated that he underwent surgeries and he has taken treatment as inpatient from 18.05.2012 to 28.05.2012. The material discloses that the PW1 has sustained three fracture injuries and also underwent operations. Thus the petitioner who sustained three fractures is entitled Rs.30,000/­ compensation for each fracture. Further considering the hospitalization period and also surgeries undergone by the petitioner,

Rs.30,000/­ is adequate towards pain and suffering. Thus the petitioner is entitled in total Rs.1,20,000/­ under the head of pain and suffering.

12

2) Nervous shock:

The petitioner met with an accident on 18.05.2012 and initially he was shifted to Government Hospital, Proddatur and from there to SVIMS

Hospital, Tirupati and from there to Apollo Hospital, Aragonda, Chittoor

District. The petitioner has admitted in the hospital on 18.05.2012 and discharged on 28.05.2012 and he has undergone surgeries. Thus taking into consideration of the hospitalization period and also nature of the injuries, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to

Rs.10,000/­ under the head of Nervous Shock. 

3) Medical expenses:

The petitioner has claimed that he has incurred huge medical expenses. Though he has stated that he has spent so much amount, he has filed Ex.A6 bunch of medical bills. The total amount under Ex.A6 bunch of medical bills is only Rs.10,635/­. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to

Rs.10,635/­ towards medical expenses.

4) Actual loss of income:­

The petitioner met with an accident on 18.05.2012. The petitioner claimed that he was a driver and getting Rs.15,000/­ per month as salary.

Except the oral testimony of PW1, there is no documentary evidence to show his monthly income. PW4 who is another driver has testified that he was getting Rs.20,000/­ per month, whereas the PW1 was getting Rs.15,000/­ per month. Absolutely there is no recorded evidence for the salary of PW1. No certificate obtained from the 5th respondent filed by the petitioner. No doubt the petitioner was the driver under the 5th respondent at the time of accident.

13

Considering the nature of the employment and circumstances prevailed in the year 2012, this court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner would have get an amount of Rs.10,000/­ per month. The petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient from 18.05.2012 to28.05.2012. In view of the injuries and in view of the treatment etc., actual loss of income to the petitioner atleast for a period of one month can be believed. Hence, under the head of actual loss of income an amount of Rs.10,000/­ can be awarded to the petitioner as compensation.

5) Loss of Income due to Permanent Disability:

The petitioner claiming that he is suffering 53% of disability. Ex.A7 is the permanent disability certificate issued by PW2. The doctor who has given the Ex.A7 is not a member of the medical board. PW2 deposed about the disability of the petitioner as 53%. During cross­examination PW2 has admitted that in general there will not be any mal union in case of success in operation and in the disability certificate he has not given reason for mal union. He has further admitted that one of the criteria for assessing permanent disability is of mal union and the mal union can be occurred due to negligence of patient in some cases. Thus PW2 is not the member of the medical board and he has not specifically stated as to what is the scale he has adopted.

a) The counsel for the petitioner has relied on the citation reported in 2007 ACJ 491 in between

Syed Saleem Vs., Abduld Shukur and another

14

In the cited case his Lordships has held that “the evidence of doctor with regard to his certification of disability has to be accepted though he has not treated the claimant.”

In this case on hand PW2 given the treatment to PW1 and he is not the member of the medical board, but he is a qualified doctor. In this case on hand the PW2 has admitted in his cross­examination that the operation conducted on the petitioner was successful and in general there will not be any mal union in case of success in operation. But in Ex.A7 he has mentioned there is mal union for fracture of right tibia. Further he has not mentioned as to what is the scale he has adopted. In view of the admissions of PW2 and considering the possibility of error and other factors the disability of petitioner has taken as 30% only.

b) The counsel for the petitioner has relied on the citation reported in 2005 ACJ 522 in between

U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Vs., Sanjay Awasthi and

others

In the cited case the Hon’ble High Court has held that “where the injured survives and is disabled, compensation awarded is higher than in case of death because compensation is to be given to a living victim who is rendered disabled and he is not able to lead a normal life.

In this case on hand the petitioner was the driver and as per the evidence of PW1 he is not able to attend driving work. 

15

c) The counsel for the petitioner also relied on the citation reported in 2014 ACJ 627 in between

Syed Sadiq and others Vs., Divisional Manager, United India Insurance

Co. Ltd.,

In the cited case the injured was aged 22 years and he was lorry cleaner and due to accident he suffered comminuted fracture and he could not able to attend work or lift his right hand.

In this case on hand the petitioner was aged about 43 years by the date of accident. The facts in the above said case are not identical and hence not helpful to the petitioner.

d) The petitioner counsel has relied on the citation reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 in between

Rajesh and others Vs., Rajbir Singh and others

In the cited case at para No.19 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that duty cast upon the tribunal to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation.

e) Thus the monthly income of the petitioner was accepted at Rs.10,000/­ per month. Therefore the petitioner would have get Rs.1,20,000/­ per annum. The age of the petitioner as per the record was 43 years by the date of accident and he was 46 years by the date of filing of the case. The age of the petitioner by the date of accident has to be taken into consideration.

f) In the citation reported in 

2009 (6) SCC 121

in between

Sarla Verma and others Vs., Delhi Transport Corporation  16

The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that 14 can be taken as multiplier for the persons in the age group of 41 – 45. The loss of income due to disability of the petitioner is Rs.1,20,000/­ X 14 x 30/100= Rs.5,04,000/­. For the reasons stated above, under the head of loss of income due to disability an amount of Rs.5,04,000/­ is awarded to the petitioner. 

g)In view of the discussion made above, the total award to the petitioner under various heads is concluded as follows:­

1) Pain and suffering Rs. 1,20,000­00

2) Nervous shock Rs. 10,000­00

3) Medical expenses Rs. 10,635­00

4) Actual loss of income Rs. 10,000­00

5) Loss of income due to permanent disability Rs.5,04,000­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Total Rs. 6,54,635­00 ==========

h) For the above reasons issue No.2 is decided in favour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,54,635/­ (Rupees six lakhs fifty four thousand six hundred and thirty five only) with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization. The respondents 1 to 3 are liable to pay the same jointly and severally. This issue is answered accordingly. 

10. ISSUE No.3:­

In the result, the petition is partly allowed with interest and costs.

(1) The compensation is awarded at Rs.6,54,635/­ (Rupees six lakhs fifty four thousand six hundred and thirty five only) with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till deposit or realization.

17 (2) Disbursement: The petitioner is permitted to withdraw

Rs.3,54,635/­ (Rupees three lakhs fifty four thousand six hundred and thirty five only) with interest and costs leaving the balance of Rs.3,00,000/­ (Rupees three lakhs only) which shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any

Nationalized Bank for a period of two years.

(3) The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The claim against he respondents 4 to 6 is dismissed.

(4) Advocate’s fee is fixed as Rs.5,000/­ (Five thousand only) (5) Time for payment of compensation is 30 days.

(6) Rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed without costs.

(7) Decree follows after verification by the office as to payment of

Court fee and exemption if any sought at the time of filing of the case and clearance of court fee dues if any.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 15th day of June, 2020. 

Sd/­ P.V.S.Suryanarayana Murthy, Chairman, MACT­cum­IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor. 

FAC Chairman, MACT­cum­VIII Additional District Judge,Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Petitioner:For the Respondents:

PW1: Dowla RW1: P.Narasimhulu PW2: Dr B.Sridhar PW2: Dr Y.K.Siva Reddy PW4: Munirajulu Naidu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of First Information Report. Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A3: Certified copy of wound certificate Ex.A4: Letter issued by the Duty Medical Officer, APVVP Area Hospital, Proddatur to the casualty Medical Officer, SVIMS Tirupati Ex.A5: Discharge summary 18

Ex.A6: Medical bills 35 in numbers Ex.A7: Permanent disability certificate issued by the Apollo Hospital, Aragonda Ex.A8: Estimation cost certificate issued by the Apollo Hospital, Aragonda Ex.A9: Policy copy of the lorry driver bearing No.AP 21 W 2918

Ex.A10: Copy of policy of the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 6777 Ex.A11: Estimation given by the Apollo Hospital, Aragonda.

For the Respondents: 

Ex.B1: True copy of policy Ex.B2: True copy of policy

Sd/­ P.V.S.Suryanarayana Murthy, Chairman, MACT­cum­IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor. 

FAC Chairman, MACT­cum­VIII Additional District Judge,Chittoor.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITTOOR

Present: P.V.S. Suryanarayana Murty, IX Additional District Judge.

Friday, the 17th (Seventeenth) day of September, 2021

A.S. No. 125 of 2018

Between:

Smt G. Sarada..Appellant

And:

1. Smt Prabhavathi

2. Smt V. Lakshmamma..Respondents

On appeal against the decree and judgment dated 21-03-2018 of the

Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner made in:

O.S. No. 11 of 2015

Between:

Smt G. Sarada..Plaintif

And:

1. Smt Prabhavathi

2. Smt V. Lakshmamma..Defendants

This appeal is coming on for hearing before me on 14.07.2021 and upon perusing material papers on record, decree and judgment of trial court and the grounds of appeal, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.K.

Sundara Kumar, Advocate for Appellant and of Sri K.P. Kumara Swamy,

Advocate for Respondent No.2 and 1st respondent remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration from 23.08.2021 till this day, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The present appeal is filed under order 41 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) by the Appellant/Plaintif aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed by the Senior Civil Judge,

Palamaner in O.S. 11 of 2015 dated 21-03-2018.

For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter are referred as their array before the trial court.

2

2. The plaintif has filed the suit for specific performance of agreement sale dated 05-05-2012 executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintif and put the plaintif in possession of plaint schedule property.

The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of the gift deed executed by her husband, in her favour. The 1st defendant for her family necessities agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintif for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- and entered into agreement of sale dated 05-05-2012 after receipt of Rs.1,20,000/- towards advance. Subsequently the plaintif was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, but the 1st defendant has been postponing the same.

15 days prior to filing of the suit the plaintif went to the Sub-registrar office to know the value of the Government and then came to know that the 1st defendant created a fictitious mortgage deed in favour of the 2nd defendant

Hence the 2nd defendant is added as a proper and necessary party. The 2nd defendant is aware of the agreement of sale executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintif. The mortgage deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is a sham, nominal which is subsequent to agreement of sale. The plaintif was got issued a notice dated 03-11-2014 through courier. The 1St defendant evaded to receive notice and the 2nd defendant issued a reply with false allegations. The plaintif is always ready and willing to perform the contract. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant No.1 remained exparte.

3(a) The defendant No.2 filed the written statement and the brief contentions are as follows:

After execution of simple mortgage deed in favour of the 2nd defendant the plaintif and 1st defendant colluded together and created the agreement of sale dated 05-05-2012. The registered simple mortgage deed 3 is not a created and fictitious mortgage deed. The 1st defendant has received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the 2nd defendant and voluntarily executed the simple mortgage deed. In spite of legal notice the 1st defendant failed to pay the mortgage amount. The 2nd defendant filed a suit against the 1st defendant vide O.S. 240 of 2013 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor and the same was transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner and renumbered

as 321 of 2014. After filing of the suit by the 2nd defendant, plaintif and 1st

defendant colluded together and created the agreement of sale. The 2nd defendant is no way responsible for the agreement of sale. It is prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Based on the pleadings of the Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner has framed the following issues on 15-10-2015.

(1) Whether the registered mortgage deed dated 16-08-2012 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is fictitious, sham and nominal one to defraud the plaintif and to defeat the agreement of sale dated 05-05-2012 or not?

(2) Whether the agreement of sale dated 05-05-2012 is created one in colluding by plaintif with 1st defendant or not?

(3) Whether the plaintif is entitled to get relief of specific performance of agreement of sale is to get execution of sale deed by 1st defendant as per agreement of sale dated 05-05-2012 by receiving balance of sale consideration or not?

(4) To what relief?

5. During trial, before the trial court, the plaintif herself got examined as PW1, and one of the attestors of agreement of sale as P.W.2. Exs.A.1 to

Ex.A.7 are marked. After closure of the plaintif's side evidence, the

Defendant No.2 herself got examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B.1 and E.B2 are marked.

6. After hearing the arguments, the trial court held issue No.1 in favour of the 2nd defendant and issues 2 and 3 against the plaintif and dismissed the suit .

4

7. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit by the trial court the plaintif has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

(1) The decree and judgment of the trial court is against the law and weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

(2) The trial court has travelled beyond the scope of the suit and the 2nd defendant stepped into the shoe of the 1st defendant and taken all the pleas.

(3) The scope of the defence of the 2nd defendant is very limited and the 2nd defendant is not entitled to take any plea which can be taken only by the 1st defendant..

(4) The judgment and decree in O.S. 11 of 2015 obtained by the 2nd defendant against the 1st defendant is only collusive, null, void and not binding on the plaintif.

(5) There is every possibility that the 1st defendant colluded with the 2nd defendant and brought into existence a registered mortgage subsequent to the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintif and also brought in to existence the collusive and fraudulent decree so as to defeat the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintif.

(6) The findings of the trial court is erroneous and unsustainable (7) The finding of the trial court that the plaintif ought to have deposited the balance of sale consideration into court and the plaintif was not ready and willing is erroneous.

(8) When the plaintif issued registered notice to the 1st defendant there was no reply from the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant did not contest the suit.

It is prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner in O.S.11 of 2015 dated 21-03- 2018.

5

8. At the time of hearing, heard the arguments of Appellant/plaintif and 2nd defendant.

The counsel for plaintif has submitted that admittedly the 1st defendant is the owner of the plaint schedule property and she has executed

Ex.A.1 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintif on 05-05-2012 after receipt of advance sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-. He has further submitted that the P.W.2 who is one of the attestors of Ex.A.1 supported the version of the plaintif. According to him the plaintif was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract and though the 1st defendant received notice did not give any reply. He has further submitted that if at all the mortgage deed executed by the 1st defendant in the favour of 2nd defendant is true, the plaintif is entitled to get a decree subject to the mortgage. He has further submitted that the findings of the trial court that Ex.A.1 is a created document is not correct and the 1st defendant herself has not contested the suit and the 2nd defendant cannot take the plea which ought to have been taken by the 1st defendant. He prays to allow the appeal.

(a). Per contra, the Respondent No.2/defendant No.2 counsel has submitted that the 1st defendant alleged to have executed the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintif but no relief is sought against the 2nd defendant and hence, no relief can be granted in view of Section 22 of

Specific Relief Act. He has further submitted that the 2nd defendant issued a reply to Ex.A.5 notice U/Ex.A.7 and the 2nd defendant filed a suit against the 1st defendant and obtained the decree. According to him, once the competent court passed the decree il.n OS No.321 of 2014 unless the decree is set aside by the appellate court the plaintif cannot contended that the mortgage deed is a collusive one. He has further submitted that the Ex.A.4 C.C of mortgage deed obtained on 01-12-2014 and the suit was also filed on the same day but the P.W.1 in her evidence stated that 15 days prior to filing of the suit she 6 went to the Register office and then she came to know about the mortgage deed is contra to the contests of Ex.A.5 notice. He has further submitted that the sale amount was fixed as per agreement of sale is Rs.1,35,000/- but the plaintif paid Rs.1,20,000/- but for payment of balance amount of Rs.15,000/- 30 months time was fixed and no ordinary prudent man fixed the time of 30 months for meagre amount of Rs.15,000/-. He has further submitted that no findings can be given about the guinness of mortgage deed in this suit because based on the mortgage a decree was passed by the competent court. He prays to dismiss the appeal by confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court.

9. Based on the contentions of both the counsels on record the following points are formulated for consideration.

1. Whether the agreement of sale dt:. 5.5.2012 (Ex.A-1) is true & valid?

2. Whether the plaintif was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract?

3. Whether the plaintif is entitled for decree of specific performance?

4. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner in O.S. 11 of 2015 is factually and legally sustainable?

5. To what relief?

10. POINTS 1 TO 4:

All these points require common discussion and hence discussed together under one head. This is the first appellate court. In a catena of citations, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is there on open for re-hearing both on question of fact and law. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. Keeping in mind the guiding principles of Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court proceeds further to decide this case.

7

a)The plaintif has filed the suit for the specific performance of agreement of sale dt: 05.05.2012 executed by the defendant No.1 in her favour. In this case on hand, the version of the plaintif is that the 1st defendant is the owner of the plaint schedule property and she has agreed to sell the same for her family necessities and entered into an agreement of sale on 05.05.2012 after receipt of advance sale consideration of Rs.

1,20,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 1,35,000/-. The further version of the plaintif is that subsequently the defendant No.1 was postponing the execution of sale deed. She went to the Sub-Registrar office and came to know that 1st defendant has executed a mortgage deed in favour of the 2nd defendant.

b) In this case on hand, the 1st defendant has remained exparte and did not contest the suit. The 2nd defendant who is the mortgagee has contended that after filing of the suit by the 2nd defendant against the 1st defendant, the plaintif and 1st defendant have colluded together and brought into existence the impugned agreement of sale.

c) The first aspect to be decided is whether Ex.A-1 agreement of sale is true and valid. This aspect can be decided only basing on the stands of vendor and vendee. The vendor remained exparte in this case. Now adverting to the stand of vendee i.e., PW-1 who is the plaintif has testified that on 05.05.2012, the defendant No.1 for her family necessities and to discharge the debts has agreed to sell the property and executed the Ex.A-1 agreement of sale after receipt of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards advance sale consideration. PW-1 who is the plaintif and vendee under Ex.A-1 has clearly and categorically testified that the 1st defendant has agreed to sell the property and has executed Ex.A-1.

d)The version of the plaintif is that the husband of the 1st defendant and PW-2 are the attestors of Ex.A-1. This PW-2 who is one of the 8 attestors of Ex.A-1 agreement of sale has testified that the 1st defendant has agreed to sell the property and has executed the Ex.A-1 in favour of the plaintif on 05.05.2012 after the receipt of advance sale consideration of Rs.

1,20,000/-. Ex.A-1 is the agreement of sale dt: 05.05.2012 standing in the name of plaintif. Thus the evidence of PW-1 with regard to execution of Ex.A- 1 by the 1st defendant in her favour is supported by PW-2 who is one of the attestors of Ex.A-1.

e)For Ex.A-1, the other attestor is none other than the husband of 1st defendant. PW-1 has testified that the husband of the 1st defendant has attested the Ex.A-1. The trial court has observed that the plaintif has failed to examine the other attestor. When the plaintif filed the suit against the 1st defendant who remained exparte, it cannot be expected that the plaintif would examine the husband of 1st defendant.

f)PW-1 has clearly and categorically testified that she was ready and willing to perform her part of contract and has requested the defendant

No.1 who was postponing the same. In this case on hand the further version of the plaintif is that she got issued Ex.A-5 notice demanding the defendant

No.1 to execute sale deed. Ex.A-6 is the courier cover. The defendant No.2 issued a reply for Ex.A-5. The version of the plaintif is that the 1st defendant has evaded to receive the notice. Thus the evidence on record discloses that the plaintif was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Since 1st defendant is not contesting the suit there is no contra material to this efect.

g)The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant has submitted that the stamps for Ex.A-1 were purchased on 02.05.2012, but Ex.A-1 was drafted on 05.05.2012 and so Ex.A-1 cannot be believed. No doubt as seen from the

Ex.A-1, the stamps were purchased on 02.05.2012, but it was drafted on 05.05.2012. Merely because stamps were purchased prior to 3 days of 9 drafting a document it cannot be held that it is suspicious circumstance. The 2nd defendant’s counsel has also submitted that the total sale consideration is

Rs. 1,35,000/- and under Ex.A-1 Rs. 1,20,000/- was paid and 30 months time was fixed for the balance amount which is a meagre amount and so Ex A1 is doubtful document. The PW-2 who is one of the attestors of Ex.A-1 has supported the version of the plaintif regarding the payment of consideration and execution of Ex.A-1 on a particular date. Merely because, the time stipulated is 30 months for a meagre amount of Rs. 15,000/-, it cannot be said that Ex.A-1 is a created one and so this ground is also flimsy ground. The counsel for defendant No.2 has contended that PW-2 has testified that himself, plaintif, defendant No.1 and the husband of defendant No.1 alone were present, but he did not state the name of scribe. It is seen that Ex A1 is a document prepared in the computer but it is not in the handwriting of any person. In fact there is an endorsment in Ex A1 that it is prepared by one

Hariachari and this factum is spoken by PW-2 in his chief examination itself .

So this contention is not acceptable.

h)In this case on hand, the 1st defendant is admittedly the owner of the schedule property, who did not contest the suit. The 2nd defendant is only a mortgagee whose rights are restricted to the extent of recover the money lent by her and if not paid from the mortgaged property. Here the stand of the plaintif is that the defendants No.1 and 2 have colluded together and created the mortgage deed. For this reason the evidence of

Dw1 is not of much use and there is only sole testimony of DW1 on behalf of 2nd defendant.

I)The counsel for the 2nd defendant contends that the plaintif did not seek decree against the 2nd defendant and hence, she is not entitled for any relief. No doubt for this reason no relief can be granted as against the 2nd defendant who is mortgagee. But there is relief sought against the 1st 10 defendant and so the plaintif’s entitlement for this relief can definitely be examined. In this case on hand, the 2nd defendant issued Ex.A-7 reply. In

Ex.A-7 reply the 2nd defendant contends at para-2 that if the plaintif or defendant No.1 discharges the mortgage amount with interest to the 2nd defendant she is ready and willing to cancel the Registered Simple Mortgage deed and this is a fair contention. But for the reasons best known 2nd defendant did not stick on to this stand during trail. Thus the version of 2nd defendant in para-2 of the reply notice is clear that her endeavor at that time was to receive her mortgage amount only. In the written statement and also in the evidence of DW-1/2nd defendant has testified that she is not aware of the sale agreement. But on the other hand again, she contradicts that it is a created one. Though the Pws-1 and 2 were cross-examined at length nothing could be elicited to the efect that the plaintif and 1st defendant have colluded together and brought into existence this Ex.A-1.

J) The Dw-1 who is 2nd defendant has testified that she has obtained the mortgage deed from the 1st defendant and also obtained decree by filing

OS No.321/2014 against the 1st defendant on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Palamaner. In Ex.A-7 reply also the 2nd defendant contends that she has filed

OS No.321/2014. The plaintif contends that defendant No.1 and 2 colluded

together and brought into existence mortgage deed. DW-1 contends that plaintif and 1st defendant have colluded together, and created the Ex.A-1.

So basing on the mortgage deed competent court has already passed a decree and hence further comments on mortgage deed are not warranted and further more this appeal is not relating to that mortgage suit.

K)The mortgage deed in the name of 2nd defendant is executed by the 1st defendant. Basing on the minor variations in the evidence of pw1 as to when she came to know about the mortgage deed of 2nd defendant the trial court came to the conclusion that Ex.A-1 is created by the plaintif and 11 1st defendant. This cannot be correct view for the reason that after coming to know about the mortgage deed plaintif filed this suit and by then Ex A1 was in existence. This aspect got nothing to do with the genuiness of Ex A1.

Though Pws-1 and 2 were cross-examined at length, nothing could be elicited to show that Ex.A-1 is created with an anti-date. Hence, for the above reasons, this court is of the opinion that the findings of the trial court that

Ex.A-1 is created with an anti-date is not tenable and not supported by any evidence on record. Therefore the plaintif is entitled for decree of specific performance against the 1st defendant as prayed for. These points are answered accordingly.

11. Now adverting to the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for 2nd defendant.

2021 SAR 326

in between

Vengal Koteswaramma

Vs

Nagapati Suryamba.

By relying on this citation, he hassubmitted that the plaintif who is vendee under the agreement of sale cannot derive any right.

In the cited case his lordships has held that according to Sec. 54 of

Transfer of Property Act, an agreement of sale of immovable property does not create any interest or charge on the property and a person having agreement of sale in his favour does not get any right in the property except the right of obtaining sale deed.

In this case on hand, the plaintif is seeking for specific performance based on the agreement of sale. The facts in the above cited case are not applicable to the case on hand. Hence, the same is not helpful to the 2nd defendant.

b) 2006 ALT-266 12 in between

P. Prabhakara Rao and another

Vs.

Y. Venkata Mohan Rao

In the cited case, the vendee under agreement of sale contended that he has paid Rs. 15,000/- under Ex.A-1 agreement of sale dt: 10.10.1979, but during the evidence he has deposed that the amount was paid on 03.10.1979

Further during the cross-examination, he has stated that the said amount was paid through PW-2. As there is a variance regarding the payment of advance sale consideration, the Hon’ble High Court has rejected specific performance and granted decree for refund of advance. In this case on hand, there are no variations brought on record regarding the payment of advance sale consideration. Hence, the above citation is not helpful to the 2nd defendant.

c) (1980) 123 ITR -118 in between

KR. Harish Chandra

Vs.

Controller of Estate Duty.

In the cited case, his lordship has held that there is diference between charge and simple mortgage and the main diference is that while in a mortgage, the right is good against the subsequent transfers, in the case of a charge, it is good only against subsequent transfers with notice or volunteers with or without notice.

This citation only clarifies that the right of the mortgagee is only to recover the amount and that the mortgage runs with the property. There can be no denial on this aspect and to enforce her rights, 2nd defendant claiming to be mortgagee has already obtained decree by initiating appropriate proceedings and she can enforce her rights pertaining to the mortgaged property as permissible under law.

13

d) AIR 2017 SC 3934 in between

B. Vijaya Bharathi

Vs.

P. Savithri

In the cited case his lordship has held that decree for specific performance cannot be granted unless the sale made by the original owner in favour of subsequent purchasers is cancelled.

In this case on hand the 2nd defendant is a mortgagee but not vendee under the sale deed. These points are answered accordingly.

12. In the result, this appeal suit is allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner in

OS No.11/2015 , dt: 21.03.2018. The suit of the Appellant/plaintif is decreed

against the defendant No.1 with costs directing her to execute Registered sale deed in pursuance of Ex.A-1 after receipt of balance sale consideration and to put the Appellant/plaintif in possession of the property. The

Appellant/plaintif is directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.

15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousands only) within one month. If the 1st defendant failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintif is at liberty to execute the decree.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant (VI ADJ Court), transcribed by her,

corrected by me and pronounced in Open Court, this the 17 th day of September, 2021.

Sd/- PVS Suryanarayana Murty,

IX ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

CHITTOOR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

Id/- PVSSSM IX ADJ/CTR 14

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­

IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present: Sri P.V.S.Suryanarayana Murthy, Chairman­cum­IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor. FAC Chairman­cum­VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor

Friday, the 19th (Nineteenth) day of June, 2020

MV OP No. 15 of 2016

K.Ganesh ….Petitioner

Vs.

1. T.N.S.T.R.C., rep., by its M.D.Villupuram, Tamilnadu State.

2. K.Shanmugam (driver) ….Respondents

This petition is coming on 16.06.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Purushotham, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri G.Rajaram, Advocate for 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent remained exparte and upon hearing their arguments through Video Conference and the matter is having stood over for consideration, this Court passed the following:­

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner/injured U/sec.166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act seeking the Court to award Rs.4,00,000/­ towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:­

 The petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was doing cooly work and earning Rs.250/­ per day. On 09.06.2014 in the evening hours, the petitioner along with S.Purushotham and M.Sathish went to Murakambattu on their personal work and after completion of work they were proceeding to their village on a motorcycle bearing AP 03 AQ 1304 driven by S.Purushotham, the petitioner and Sathish were the pillion riders, the bus bearing No.TN 32 N 3490 driven by the 2nd respondent in a 2 rash/negligent manner dashed the two wheeler, as a result the petitioner,

M.Sathish and S.Purushotham fell on the ground and sustained injuries.

Immediately the petitioner and others shifted to Government Head Quarters

Hospital, Chittoor and the petitioner later admitted as inpatient in CMC

Hospital, Vellore and underwent operation. The petitioner sustained the following injuries:­

1. Deformity open fracture to right leg.

2. Laceration on right eyebrow

3. Bleeding from nose.

Basing on the complaint the Station House Officer, Traffic Police, Chittoor registered a case in Cr.No.43/2014 against the 2nd respondent who was the driver of the 1st respondent bus. Hence, this petition.

3. The respondent No.1, filed the counter/written statement dt.01.04.2016 vide CFR No.853. The brief contentions are as follows:­

On 09.06.2014 the driver of the 1st respondent drove the bus bearing

No.TN 32 N 3490 from Kallakurichi to Tirupathi in a moderate speed observing traffic rules and regulations. When the bus reached near Sugar

Factory in Chittoor, the two wheeler bearing No.AP 03 AQ 1304 came in the opposite directions with three persons in a rash/negligent manner and the respondent No.1 bus driver fully slow down the vehicle by applying break and the vehicle is about to halt, the two wheeler came and hit in front of the right side of the bus. The driver of the 1st respondent drove the bus in his path and the two wheeler only violated the rules and came to his right side and caused the accident. The two wheeler is authorized to carry only two persons as three persons were travelling in the said two wheeler, they have 3 violated the rules of the Motor Vehicles Act. The owner and insurance company of the two wheeler are proper and necessary parties and hence the petition is bad for non joinder of owner and insurance company of the two wheeler. The rider of the two wheeler did not possess valid driving licence and failed to wear the helmet. The amount claimed by the petitioner is excessive. Connected OP No.322/2015 which is pending before the court and both OPS has to be tried together. It is prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the then officer on 31.01.2017.

1)  Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TNSTC bus bearing No.TN 32/N­3490 or rash and negligent driving of the driver of Motor cycle bearing No.AP 03/AQ­ 1304?

2) Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of compensation? If so,to what amount and from whom?

4) To what relief?

5. During trial, the petitioner himself got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A10. After closure of the petitioner evidence, the 2nd respondent was examined as RW1.

6. After closure of the evidence, heard the arguments of both the counsel through Video Conference. 

The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was 19 years old by the date of accident and on 09.06.2014 at about 7.40 PM when the petitioner was travelling on a motorcycle which was driven by one 4

Purushotham, the bus bearing No.TN 32/N­3490 driven by the 2nd respondent came in a opposite direction and dashed the two wheeler, due to which the petitioner and others sustained injuries. He has further submitted that the petitioner has admitted in CMC Hospital, Vellore and taken treatment and also undergone surgeries by spending morethan Rs.1 lakh.

According to him the evidence of PW1 is supported by the documentary evidence. He has further submitted that the findings of the criminal court are not binding on the Tribunal and acquittal of 2nd respondent in the criminal case, is not a ground to reject the claim of the petitioner. He prays to allow the petition.

a) Per contra, the learned counsel representing the 1st respondent counsel has submitted that the petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has violated the provisions of M.V.Act. According to him as per the provisions of the M.V.Act only two persons have to travel on the two wheeler but as per the petition averments, the petitioner, Purushotham and one Sathish were travelling on the two wheeler bearing No.AP 03 AQ 1304 and on that ground the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. He has further submitted that the two wheeler is not belongs to the petitioner and the owner of the two wheeler and insurance company are not shown as parties and hence this petition is bad for non joinder of owner of the two wheeler bearing No.AP 03

AQ 1304 and insurance company. He has further submitted that the rider of the two wheeler did not possess any valid driving licence. According to him, the petitioner has failed to establish that due to negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, accident was occurred and though the chief affidavit of

Sathish was filed by the petitioner, failed to produce him before the court.

He has further submitted that the petitioner failed to prove his claim and he 5 has not examined any doctor nor produced any evidence to show that he is not able to attend the work due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. He prays to dismiss the petition.

7. ISSUE No.1:­

The claim of the petitioner is that on 09.06.2014 in the evening the petitioner, Purushotham and Sathish were proceeding to their village on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 03 AQ 1304, then the bus bearing No.TN 32 N 3490 driven by the 2nd respondent came in a opposite direction and hit the motorcycle near Sugarfactory, Chittoor due to which they fell on the ground and sustained injuries. The specific version of the petitioner is that due to the rash/negligent act of the 2nd respondent, the accident took place. To prove the contention of the petitioner, the petitioner himself got examined as

PW1 and he has specifically stated that the bus driven by the 2nd respondent came in a rash/negligent manner and hit the two wheeler due to which they sustained the injuries.

a) During cross­examination of PW1, it was elicited that Purushotham was the rider of the motorcycle. He has denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to rash/negligent driving of the Purushotham. Except the PW1 none others were examined to prove the rash/negligent act of the 2nd respondent. However, the PW1 who is injured has specifically deposed regarding the rash/negligent act of the RW1. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of

FIR. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge sheet. The Station House Officer,

Chittoor Traffic Police conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the RW1.

6

b) The RW1 in his chief examination has testified that 09.06.2014 he was on duty and he was the driver of the bus bearing No.TN 32 N 3490 flying between Kallakurchi to Tirupati and when the bus reached Sugar factory

Kalyanamandapam, Chittoor, the two wheeler bearing No.AP 03 AQ 1304 came in opposite direction with three persons and he applied with break and when the bus coming to halt, the two wheeler came and hit right side of the bus. He has further testified that there was speed on the spot and he did not drove the bus in a rash/negligent manner. During cross­examination he has denied the suggestion that he drove the bus in a rash/negligent manner and caused the accident. No doubt the speed is not a criteria to determine the negligent act of the respondent No.2.

c) Except the evidence of RW1 there is no other material produced to show that he did not drive the vehicle in a rash/negligent manner. Though

RW1 claims that the case filed by the traffic police ended in acquittal, he did not choose to file the copy of judgment of the criminal court. Assuming for a moment if the criminal case filed by the prosecution is ended in acquittal, the findings in criminal case are not binding.

d) In the citation reported in

CMA No.773 of 2017

in between

Nagammal Vs., Muthirayan

The Hon’ble Madras High Court has discussed the citations of other High

Courts and held that “acquittal in criminal case does not lead to automatic inference that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. Acquittal of the driver in criminal case will have no bearing on the findings to be recorded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal.” 7

Thus if the criminal case filed against RW1 ended in acquittal, is not a ground to reject this petition. This tribunal has to dispose the case basing on the evidence adduced in this case.

e) The petitioner counsel relied on the citation reported in

2020 (1) AMLJ 176

in between

New India Assurance Co., Ltd., rep., by its Divisional Manager, Guntur

Vs., Shaik Salimoon and others

In the cited case “there was a triple riding and the rider of two wheeler died in the accident, the tribunal held that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the both the vehicles and fixed the ratio at 75% and 25% on the driver of the crime vehicle and rider of the scooter respectively and the same was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court.”

f) In this case on hand also there was a triple riding. Though there is no specific averments in the pleadings with regard to the contributory negligence, the material discloses that three persons were travelling on the two wheeler at the time of accident. The same analogy is applicable to the case on hand since there were three persons travelling on the two wheeler at the time of accident. Thus the ratio of negligence is fixed at 75% and 25% on the part of the 2nd respondent who was the driver of the crime vehicle and rider of the two wheeler bearing No.AP 03 AQ 1304. This issue is answered accordingly. 

8. ISSUE No.2:­

 The version of the respondent No.1 is that this petition is bad for non joinder of owner and insurance company of the two wheeler. The version of 8 the respondent No.1 is that the rider of the two wheeler violated the traffic rules and drove the vehicle and caused the accident. This Court already held in issue No.1 that there was a contributory negligence. Merely because the owner and insurance company of two wheeler are not shown as parties, the entire claim cannot be rejected. This issue is answered accordingly.

9. ISSUE No.3:­

The petitioner has sustained injuries in the Motor Vehicle Accident.

The driver of the crime bus shown as 2nd respondent and 1st respondent is the owner of the said crime vehicle. Merely because there was triple riding on the two wheeler, the entire claim cannot be thrown away. Though the respondent No.1 contends that the rider of the two wheeler has no driving licence, there is no material put­forth to that effect.

Quantum:

In a clam for compensation basing on the injuries sustained in a motor accident the compensation can be awarded under the following heads:

1) Pain and suffering.

2) Nervous shock.

3) Medical expenses.

4) Actual loss of income. 

5) Loss of income due to permanent disability.

1) Pain & Suffering:­

The petitioner claimed that he has suffered deformity open fracture of right leg and he was admitted as inpatient in CMC Hospital, Vellore from 10.06.2014 to 16.06.2014. The PW1 has specifically stated that soon after the accident he had joined in the hospital and undergone surgery. Ex.A5 is the discharge summary. This document discloses that the petitioner had 9 admitted in the hospital on 10.06.2014 and discharged on 16.06.2014.

Ex.A7 is the X­Ray. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A5 discloses that the petitioner has sustained fracture injury and undergone operation. Thus taking into consideration of hospitalization period of the petitioner and also fracture injury sustained by him, this Court is of the considered opinion that

Rs.30,000/­ towards the fracture and Rs.20,000/­ towards the hospitalization period of the petitioner which is adequate and reasonable. Thus the petitioner is entitled in total Rs.50,000/­ under the head of pain and suffering.

2) Nervous shock:

The petitioner met with an accident on 09.06.2014 and initially he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor and from there to CMC Hospital,

Vellore. The petitioner had admitted in the hospital on 10.06.2014 and discharged on 16.06.2014 and he has undergone surgeries. Thus taking into consideration of the hospitalization period and also nature of the injuries, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to

Rs.10,000/­ under the head of Nervous Shock. 

3) Medical expenses:

The petitioner has claimed that he has incurred huge medical expenses. He has produced the medical bills. Ex.A6 is the bunch of medical bills. As seen from the Ex.A6, the petitioner has spent an amount of

Rs.65,781/­. As seen from Ex.A6, the petitioner has purchased the medicines from 09.06.2014 to 21.06.2014 and he was in hospital from 10.06.2014 to 16.06.2014. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.65,781/­ as medical expenses.

10

a) The petitioner also filed Ex.A10 medical bills. Ex.A10 medical bills is of the year 2016. The PW1 in his chief examination has not specifically stated for what purpose he has purchased medicine in the year 2016. Though it was suggested to PW1 that Ex.A10 bills are not genuine and he has not taken any treatment during the period mentioned in Ex.A10, he has not adduced any evidence to that effect. Interestingly he has not stated in his chief examination what was the treatment taken by him in the year 2016. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the amount mentioned in Ex.A10. Thus under the head of medical expenses, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.65,781/­.

4) Actual loss of income:­

The petitioner met with an accident on 09.06.2014. The petitioner claimed that he is a labour. The petitioner has suffered fracture injury. The claim of the petitioner is that he was getting Rs.250/­ per day. There will not be any documentary evidence to prove the income derived from the cooly work. No doubt the petitioner would not get cooly 30 days in a month.

Considering the nature of the work, this court is of the considered opinion that the income of the petitioner can be accepted at Rs.4,000/­ per month.

The petitioner could not attend work for a period of one month. Hence, under the head of actual loss of income an amount of Rs.4,000/­ i.e., one month income can be awarded to the petitioner.

5) Loss of Income due to Permanent Disability:

The petitioner claims that he is suffering 20% of disability. Ex.A8 is the permanent disability certificate. The petitioner sustained injuries on 09.06.2014. Ex.A8was issued on 15.08.2015. The petitioner is residence of

Chittoor. He has taken treatment in CMC Hospital, Vellore in the year 2014.

11

Ex.A8 was issued by the doctor at Madanapalle. Ex.A8 was issued on 15.08.2015 i.e., one year two months after the accident. The petitioner has not examined the doctor who issued the Ex.A8. The doctor who treated the petitioner is the best person to say about the permanent disability. The petitioner has failed to examine the doctor to prove Ex.A8.

a) In the citation reported in 2008 AIR SC 2396 in between

Rajesh Kumar @ Raju Vs., Yudhvir Singh

The Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed similar issue and the relevant portion in para No.9 of the citation is extracted as follows:­ “The certificate in question in this case was obtained after two years. It is not known as to whether the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the

appellant. On what basis, such a certificate was issued two years after the

accident took place is not known. The author of the said certificate had not been

examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself, it was not

admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60% was calculated on the

basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise is not

known.”

In this case on hand also the PW1 in his cross­examination has admitted that he gave Rs.10,000/­ to the doctor, who issued Ex.A8. Ex.A8 obtained one year two months after accident. PW1 taken treatment at

Vellore. Ex.A8certificate issued by the doctor at Madanapalle. PW1 did not examine the author of Ex.A8 to prove it. Hence, the petitioner failed to establish the Ex.A8 and failed to prove the permanent disability. Hence, he is 12 not entitled for any compensation under the head of loss of income due to permanent disability.

b)In view of the discussion made above, the total award to the petitioner under various heads is concluded as follows:­

1) Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000­00

2) Nervous shock Rs. 10,000­00

3) Medical expenses Rs. 65,781­00

4) Actual loss of income Rs. 4,000­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Total Rs. 1,29,781­00 =========

c) Thus the total compensation is of Rs.1,29,781/­. Since contributory negligence was fixed at 75% on the RW1, the respondents are liable to pay

Rs.97,335/­.

d) For the above reasons issue No.3 is decided in favour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.97,335/­ (Rupees ninety seven thousand three hundred and thirty five only) with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization. The respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the same jointly and severally. This issue is answered accordingly. 

10. ISSUE No.4:­

In the result, the petition is partly allowed with interest and costs.

(1) The compensation is awarded at Rs.97,335/­ (Rupees ninety seven thousand three hundred and thirty five only) with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till deposit or realization.

(2) Disbursement: The petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded with costs and interest accrued thereon.

13 (3) The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

(4) Advocate’s fee is fixed as Rs.5,000/­ (Five thousand only) (5) Time for payment of compensation is 30 days.

(6) Rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed without costs.

(7) Decree follows after verification by the office as to payment of

Court fee and exemption if any sought at the time of filing of the case and clearance of court fee dues if any.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19th day of June, 2020. 

Sd/­ P.V.S.Suryanarayana Murthy, Chairman, MACT­cum­IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor. 

FAC Chairman, MACT­cum­VIII Additional District Judge,Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Petitioner:For the Respondents:

PW1: K.Ganesh RW1: A.Shanmugam 

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of First Information Report. Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A3: Certified copy of wound certificate Ex.A4: Certified copy of Accidental Information report Ex.A5: Discharge summary Ex.A6: Consolidated medical bills for Rs.65,781/­ Ex.A7: X­Ray of the petitioner Ex.A8: Permanent disability certificate Ex.A9: Treatment card

Ex.A10: Consolidated bill for Rs.15,604/­.

For the Respondents: Nil ­

Sd/­ P.V.S.Suryanarayana Murthy, Chairman, MACT­cum­IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor. 

FAC Chairman, MACT­cum­VIII Additional District Judge,Chittoor.

14

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : CHITTOOR.

Present: Sri P.V.S.Suryanara yana Murthy,

IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor. FAC VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor.

Thursday this the Twenty Fifth (25th) day of June 2020

C.M.A. No. 12 of 2018

Between:

1. P.Kishore Reddy,

2. V.Bhaskar Reddy

3. G.Raja Reddy

4. V.Subramanyam Reddy @ Gangi Reddy

5. V.Surendra Reddy

6. G.Ranga Reddy … Appellants/Respondents/Defendants. And: M.Murali Reddy @ M.Murali. … Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff. Sub:­ Appeal filed Under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC against the Order and Decretal Order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor in I.A.No.258/2018 in O.S.No.185/2018, dt.23.07.2018.

Lower Court cause title:­ Between: M.Murali Reddy @ M.Murali … Petitioner/Plaintiff. And:

1. P.Kishore Reddy

2. V.Bhaskar Reddy

3. G.Raja Reddy

4. V.Subramanyam Reddy @ Gangi Reddy

5. V.Surendra Reddy

6. G.Ranga Reddy … Respondents/Defendants. 

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is coming on 18.06.2020 before me for final hearing and upon perusing the material papers on record and grounds of appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri U.Seshadri Naidu, Advocate

for appellants and of Sri K.Balachandra, Advocate for the respondent,

through Video Conference and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:­ 

O R D E R

The defendants in the suit preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order and decree passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chittoor in I.A.No.258/2018 in O.S.No.185/2018 dt.23.07.2018.

2

2. The respondent has field the main suit against the appellants for grant of permanent injunction and also filed I.A.No.258/2018 for temporary injunction. The brief averments of the petition in I.A.No.258/2018 are as follows:­

The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the main suit and that the plaint schedule mentioned properties and other properties are the ancestral property of the G.Reddiprasad and the respondent/plaintiff has purchased the same under a registered sale deed dt.30.12.2009 from the said

Reddiprasad and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute rights. The appellants/defendants who are interrelated to each other are nothing to do with the suit schedule property and unnecessarily creating troubles and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent/plaintiff over the schedule properties. On 22.10.2017 at about 12.50 PM, the respondent/plaintiff along with others were loading foundation stones, then the appellants/defendants trespassed into the vacant land of the respondent/plaintiff and beat him with hands and legs and when the wife of the respondent/plaintiff tried to rescue him, the appellants/defendant No.1 and his wife also beat her. Then the respondent/plaintiff gave a complaint and the Station House Officer, Irala P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.44/2017 and the same is pending. On 20.02.2018 the appellants/defendants and their followers high handedly entered into the suit schedule property and erected stone pillars and thorny bushes across the way in between the respondent/plaintiff property and Raja veedhi and closed the way to the suit schedule property and when the elders observed the same and questioned the 3 appellants, they gave evasive replies. Hence, the main suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction.

3.The appellant/1st defendant filed the counter, which was adopted by the other defendants and the brief contentions are as follows:­

The residential building of the respondent/plaintiff is situated towards southern side of the suit schedule property and there is a street (raja veedhi) situated on the west of the suit schedule property as shown in rough sketch filed by the defendant No.1. The respondent/plaintiff has got direct access to the said Rajaveedi from his residential building and also the suit schedule property. There is a Gramakantam land meant for communal purpose on the east of the suit schedule property and in the said property there was a

Gramapanchayat office and the same was collapsed due to heavy rains in the year 2015. Later the Gramapanchayat also passed resolution to construct the new building. On further east of the said Gramakantam land there was a old rajaveedhi. The respondent/plaintiff raised cattle shed and hayrick pandal in the suit schedule property claimed to be the purchaser of the same from one

G.Reddiprasad. The respondent/plaintiff never resided in the suit schedule property at any point of time. About one year ago he has constructed a compound wall and while constructing compound wall he has encroached 5 to 6 feet of gramakantam land on the eastern side and claiming that as per his sale deed he has purchased the property from western side rajaveedhi up to eastern side rajaveedi. It is prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4. During the course of enquiry before trial court, Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 are marked on the side of the plaintiff and Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 are marked on the side of the defendants. After hearing both sides, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, 4

Chittoor allowed the application by granting temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit.

5. Aggrieved with the orders passed by the trial court in I.A.No.258/2018 in O.S.No.185/2018 dt.23.07.2018, the appellants/defendants have preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Application on the following grounds:­

a) The order and decretal order of the trial court is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 

b) The trial court failed to understand the entire case of the appellants and erroneously allowed the injunction application without proper appreciation of the evidence and without observing that the respondent/petitioner has come up with a false case.

c) The trial court failed to consider Ex.R7 legal notice dt.13.05.2018 and Ex.R8 attested copy of letter dt.15.06.2018 issued by the Extension

Officer, Panchayathraj and Rural Development, Irala Mandal. 

d) The trial court failed to understand the dispute between the parties properly and failed to observe that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit by mentioning eastern boundary as Rajaveedhi which is infact situated further east of Gramakantam land. 

e) The trial court failed to consider the photographs filed by the appellants.

f) The trial court failed to observe that the rough sketch filed by the respondent/plaintiff does not disclose the real and existing physical features. 

g) The trial court wrongly held that the appellants failed to prove their claim, but the burden is on the respondent/plaintiff. It is prayed to allow the 5 appeal by setting aside the order and decretal order passed by the Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor in I.A.No.258/2018 in O.S.No.185/2018, dt.23.07.2018.

6. At the time of hearing, heard the arguments of both counsel.

The counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent has no right over the schedule property and there is a Gramakantam site between the house of the respondent and eastern side Rajaveedhi, but the respondent wrongly shown eastern side boundary as Rajaveedhi in Ex.P1 sale deed and taking advantage of the same he is claiming Gramakantam land. He has further submitted that there was a Gramapanchayat office in the said site and the same was collapsed due to heavy rains in the year 2015 and there is a proposal to construct the building and the documents produced by the appellants proves the same. He has further submitted that the trial court without appreciating the documents wrongly held that the respondent is entitled for temporary injunction. He prays to allow the Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal by setting aside the order and decretal order of the trial court. 

a) Per contra, the counsel for the respondent has submitted that the trial court after conducting full­fledged enquiry rightly allowed the application.

He has further submitted that as per Ex.P1 sale deed the respondent has purchased the site in between western side Rajaveedhi and eastern side

Rajaveedi and the respondent has been in possession of the suit schedule property. He has further submitted that the old panchayat office is situated towards further east of the eastern side old Rajaveedi, but not in between the site of the respondent and eastern side Rajaveedi. He prays to dismiss the appeal. 

6

7. Basing on the above contentions of both the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration:­

1. Whether the respondent has established that he was in possession of

the schedule property and entitled for temporary injunction?

2. Whether the order and decretal order passed by the trial court is factually and legally sustainable?

3. To what relief?

8.POINTS 1 & 2:

Both the points require common discussion and hence discussed jointly under one head.

The claim of the respondent is that he has purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.P1 sale deed from one G.Reddiprasad and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The version of the appellants is that there was a old panchayath office in between the respondent house and eastern side old Rajaveedi and the same was collapsed during the floods and the respondent with an intention to grab the same filed the suit and also occupied 5 to 6 feet and constructed a wall.

a) The respondent has filed the Application and claimed temporary injunction. In a petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of the CPC, the respondent is required to establish three ingredients i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The specific version of the respondent is that he has purchased the schedule property under a sale deed dt.30.12.2009. Ex.P1 is the registered sale deed dt.30.12.2009. As seen from

Ex.P1 the respondent has purchased the site situated in Gundlapalle village in

Sy.No.475 in an extent of 1296 square feet. Thus as seen from Ex.P1 the respondent has purchased the property from one G.Reddiprasad. The 7 appellants are not disputing the fact of purchase of the property by the respondent from Reddiprasad.

b) Ex.P2 is the rough sketch prepared by the respondent. As per Ex.P2 towards east of the respondent house there is a old Rajaveedhi and further east of the said Rajaveedi there is a old panchayath office. Ex.P3 is the copy of the complaint. Ex.P4 is also copy of the representation to the Tahsildar.

Ex.P5 is also copy of the representation to the District Collector, Chittoor.

Ex.P6 is the copy of the FIR. Prior to filing of the case there was a dispute between the parties and basing on the complaint of respondent a case was registered against the appellants and others.

c) The appellants contends that there was a old panchayath office in between the respondent’s house and old Rajaveedi. Except the bold averments in the counter, there is no material produced by the appellants to substantiate the same. If the property belongs to the panchayat office and the respondent tried to occupy the vacant site, nothing prevented the concerned Gramapanchayat to proceed against the respondent as per the provisions of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act. The concerned panchayat has to accord permission to the individual to make constructions within the panchayat areas. If the respondent make construction in the Gramakantam land, the concerned panchayat ought to have taken action by following procedure under the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act. Further more the appellants are not the office bearers of the Gramapanchayat.

d) The appellants are not claiming any individual right. Ex.R7 is the notice issued by appellants. No doubt the villagers gave the representation to the District Panchayat Officer. Furthermore the Sarpanch Gramapanchayat 8 passed resolution for construction of the panchayat office in the

Gramakantam land. The crux of the issue is that whether the site in between the respondent house and the eastern side Rajaveedhi belongs to the respondent or Gramapanchayat. As per Ex.P1 the respondent had purchased the property upto the eastern side Rajaveedi. The appellants have not exhibited any record issued by the panchayat, Gundlapalle to show that there was a panchayat office in between the respondent house and eastern side old

Rajaveedi. Thus, for the foregoing reasons this court is of the considered opinion that the respondent could make out strong prima face case. 

e) The specific version of the respondent is that the appellants are causing inconvenience to the respondent for his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The respondent gave Ex.P5 complaint in the year 2017. Basing on the complaint of the respondent, the Station House

Officer, Irala P.S., registered a case against the appellants. Long prior to filing of the present suit, there was a criminal case filed against the appellants. Further more the appellants in the counter contends that the respondent encroached 5 to 6 feet in the schedule property and made construction. Thus the material on record discloses that the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent.

f) The Ex.P1 sale deed shows that the respondent had purchased the property. The appellants are not disputing the said fact and they are admitting purchase of the property, but contending that there was a panchayat office in between the respondent property and eastern side

Rajaveedi, but there is no material to that effect. When the respondent could prove that he is in possession of the property, his possession has to be 9 protected. If the injunction is not granted to the respondent who is in possession of the property, would suffer irreparable loss. Thus for the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality warranting interference in the trial court order. Thus the temporary injunction granted by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor is hereby upheld. This point is answered accordingly.

9. Point No.3:

In the result,the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, with costs, by confirming the order and decretal order passed by the Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Chittoor in I.A.No.258/2018 in O.S.No.185/2018 dt.23.07.2018.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 25thday of June, 2020. 

Sd/­ P.V.S.Suryanarayana Murthy, IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor FAC VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence was adduced in this appeal. 

Sd/­ P.V.S.Suryanarayana Murthy, IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor FAC VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor 10

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

CHITTOOR

Present: P.V.S. Suryanarayana Murty,

IX ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC, VI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

Thursday, the 23rd (Twenty Third) day of September, 2021

Crl.M.P.No.833 of 2021

Cr.No. 676 of 2021 of Alipiri Police Station Between: S. Thejesh @ S. Thejesh Kumar, S/o M. Sanjay Setu, aged about 29 years, D.No.4-100, Gaandla Street, Kuppam, Chittoor District.

..Petitioner/Accused No.1

And: The State of A.P. rep. by S.H.O. Alipiri P.S., Tirupati.

.. Respondent/ Complainant

This petition is coming on for hearing before me this day and upon perusing the petition, and other relevant papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y. Suresh Raju–Advocate for Petitioner/ Accused No.1 and of Smt. T. Nirmala- Addl. Public Prosecutor for State through Blue Jeans video App, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This is an application fled on behalf of the petitioner/Accused No.1 under

Sec. 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) seeking the court to release him on bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as seen from the copy of charge sheet in brief is as follows:

In the year 2019 when the defacto-complainant was playing Pubji game in her cell phone, she got acquaintance with the accused No.1. Later both of them chit-chatting and in the month of July, 2019 the accused No.1 went into the house of defacto-complainant in Tirupati and gave sweets and after she ate sweets fell unconscious. Then the accused No.1 removed her cloths and enjoyed her sexually and taken photographs and the accused No.1 threatened the defacto-complainant that he would show the nude photos to others. Later he has extorted Rs. 15,00,000/- cash and 35 grams gold. In the month of October, 2019 accused No.1 took the defacto-complainant to Pasupathi Lodge and there accused No.2 committed rape on her. When the defacto-complainant informed the same to accused No.3, who threatened her that he would kill her. Based on the complaint a case in Cr. No. 676 of 2021 was registered for the ofence punishable U/Sec. 376(2), 354(A), 342, 417, 384 r/w 34 IPC.

3. The case of the petitioner/accused No.1 in brief is as follows:

There is a delay of more than 600 days in reporting the crime and no prudent woman would keep quite without reporting to the police. The respondent fled petition for the purpose of potency test on 10.08.2021 and the same was 2 allowed by IV JFCM Chittoor. The Alipiri Police fled a petition for police custody of accused on 10.08.2021 and the same was allowed by the IV AJFCM, Chittoor. The accused No.3 was already enlarged on bail on 01.09.2021. The petitioner is no way connected to the case. The respondent fled charge sheet on 04.09.2021. It is prayed to allow the petition.

4.Notice given to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

5. Heard both sides through blue jeans video app.

6. Now the point for determination is that Whether the petitioner/

Accused No.1 is entitled for bail?

7. POINT:

This is a petition fled by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Sec. 439

Cr.P.C. seeking the court to release the petitioner on bail. The case of the prosecution is that the victim got acquaintance with the accused No.1 through

Information Technology and the accused No.1 visited the house of victim in the absence of her husband and gave some sweets by mixing sleeping pills and committed rape on her and also obtained nude photos and blackmailed her. The record reveals that the accused No.1 took the victim to Pasupathi lodge and confned in the room and there accused No.1 and 2 committed rape on her. It can be seen from the confession of the accused No.1 that the victim transferred some amount to accused No.1 and also his friends through Phone-pay and

Googlepay. The record reveals that the accused No.1 extracted the cash of

Rs.15,00,000/- and gold ornaments from the victim by putting her in fear that he would upload nude photos.

8.This is the second bail application fled on behalf of the petitioner/ accused No.1. As seen from the record the petitioner/accused No.1 is in judicial custody since 07.08.2021. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is also fled as seen from the case diary. Further-more as seen from the case diary there are no previous cases against the accused. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner/accused No.1 is enlarged on bail on the following conditions.

9.In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail on execution of self bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty fve thousand) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati.

(a) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall appear before the Station House

Ofcer, Alipiri P.S. on every Sunday between 10 AM to 2 PM for a period of one month.

(b) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not tamper the evidence nor threaten the witnesses.

3

(c) The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not leave India without the permission of the trial court.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant (VI ADJ Court), transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court through e-court’s website, this the 23rd day of September, 2021.

Sd/- P.V.S. Suryanarayana Murty,

IX ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC, VI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

CHITTOOR

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Copy to: The IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati Copy to: The Station House Ofcer, Alipiri P.S., Copy to the counsel for petitioner on payment of usual charges.