Sri P.Vasu

MVOP.No. 98/2018 - 1 - II Addl.Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS’ TRIBUNAL

-CUM-II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA at PRODDATUR.

Present: Sri P. Vasu, Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

Monday, this the 11 th day of April, 2022.

M.V.O.P. NO. 98 of 2018

1. Songa Guru Sekhar.

2. Songa Lakshmi Devi.

3. Songa Guru Sai Tarun, Minor rep. by his mother and natural guardian i.e., S. Lakshmi Devi.

... CLAIMANTS.

Vs.

1. Ganta Prathap.

2. Shriram General Insurance Co., Ltd., … RESPONDENTS. This petition coming on 22-03-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Sreenu, Advocate for the Claimants, 1st

Respondent set exparte and Sri Y. Neelakanta Reddy, Advocate for the 2nd Respondent, having heard on both sides, having perused the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :-

O R D E R

This is a Motor Vehicle Original Petition filed under

Sec.163-A and Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule

475/476 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Amended

Act.54/94 to award compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- to the Claimants with interest at 16% p.a, under Sec.171 of M.V.Act till the date of realization in favour of Claimants and against the 1st and 2nd

Respondents jointly and severally as well as costs of the Petition u/sec.172 of M.V.Act.

2. Brief reference of facts lead to file this Original

Petition are that :-

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -2- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

“ One Ganta Naresh Kumar being resident of R.Pampally village of

Uyyalavada Mandal of Kurnool District came to his Junior Maternal aunt’s house at Kanneluru village of Jammalamadugu Mandal about four days back prior to 08-08-2017 on which day in the evening he and his maternal aunt’s son by name Songa Guru

Ashok Kumar being the son of 1st and 2nd Claimants and brother of 3rd Claimant was going on a Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP 21

TX 3314 and AP 21 BB 6162 (Songa Guru Ashok Kumar is the driver and Ganta Naresh Kumar sitting on the left side of the

Engine of the tractor) and when they are proceeding on the road leading to Seshareddypalli village after crossing the Railway gate at about 6.30 P.M the said Ganta Ashok Kumar being the driver drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and when the Buffaloes came across the road due to which he tried to save the buffaloes but in view of rash and negligent and high speed driving, he lost his control over Tractor and Trailer and got turned turtle towards right side as a result of which the said

Ganta Naresh Kumar sustained injuries but Songa Guru Ashok

Kumar died on the spot under the trailer and basing on the written complaint, a case was registered in Cr.No.274/2017 of

Jammalamadugu (U/G) P.S for the offences under Sec.337 and

Sec.304-A of IPC and during the course of investigation, the inquest was held on the dead body of the deceased by name Guru

Ashok Kumar as well as Post-Mortem Examination and the

Investigating Officer made out the case against the deceased

Songa Guru Ashok Kumar for the offences under Sec.337 and

Sec.304-A of IPC and that since the accused, who is the root cause for the accident, was died in the accident as such the case against him was abated.

The deceased Songa Guru Ashok Kumar being aged about 21 years, completed B.Com degree and studying MBA course and the deceased also obtained pass port to live at abroad as driver or any helper in private employment in other countries and as on the date of accident, the deceased doing his driver profession by earning Rs.15,000/- per month which he used to contribute for the welfare of his family and that after the death of Songa Guru Ashok

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -3- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

Kumar, the Claimants being the parents and brother have lost their bread winner and as such now the 1st and 2nd Claimants are doing cooly work for their livelihood and that since the 1st

Respondent is the owner and 2nd Respondent is the insurer of the 1st Respondent’s Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP 21 TX 3314 and

AP 21 BB 6162 and 2nd Respondent is the insurer to the 1st

Respondent’s Tractor and Trailer to indemnify the loss caused in the accident as such both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Claimants. Hence, this

MVOP.”

3. The 1 st Respondent, failed to appear before the

Tribunal on the date of first hearing even though received

notice, as such 1 st Respondent was made set exparte.

4. The 2 nd Respondent’s Insurance Company contested

this MVOP by filing written statement with the following brief

averments:- “This Respondent, at the first instance, denied the allegations of

Original Claim Petition except which are admitted stating that

the 1 st Respondent’s Tracrtor and Trailer bearing No.AP 21

TX 3314 and AP 21 BB 6162 was insured with this

Respondent under Policy No.10003/31/17/262/428 for a period of 12-09-2016 to 11-09-2017 but the policy is subject to terms and condititions and that the above Tractor bearing No. AP 21 TX 3314 is registered for private use and the Trailer bearing No.

AP 21 BB 6162 was registered for agriculture purpose but the said

Tractor and Trailer used for commercial purpose as on the date of accident as such the 1st Respondent violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and that the 1 st Respondent

also allowed to drive the Tractor and Trailer by the

deceased by name Songa Ashok Kumar who have no

driving licence to drive the specific class of tractor and

trailer which is also a violation of terms and conditions of policy for which the 2nd Respondent being the insurer is not liable to

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -4- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

indemnify the loss caused in the accident and that as per R.C of the said Tractor the sitting capacity is for only one person i.e., who is driver only and that there is a delay of 15 1/2 hours in reporting the accident to the police and there is no such proper explanation for delay as such the accident was manipulated one for unlawful gain and that the Investigating Officer was filed Final Report referring the case as abated.

The deceased by name Songa Guru Ashok Kumar is

not a 3 rd party to attract the provisions of Sec.166 of

M.V.Act and it is for the Claimants to prove the age of the deceased either by Aadhar card, household card and Voter Identity card etc., and that the 1st Respondent failed to give information about the accident to the 2nd Respondent as required under

Sec.134(c) of M.V.Act which discloses that the manipulation for unlawful gain and that the amount claimed by the Claimants is huge, superfluous, excessive and irrational and baseless and the claim is against the said legal provisions and the 2nd Respondent reserves his right to seek protection under Sec.171 of M.V.Act, in view of 1st Respondent’s collusion or his staff failure to contest the case and hence prayed to dismiss this claim petition.”

5. Basing on the above said rival contentions, the following issues are framed for trial:- (1) Whether the accident occured on 8.8.2017 at about 6.30 P.M while the defacto complainant by name Ganta Naresh Kumar along with his aunt’s son by name Songa Guru Ashok Kumar being the son of 1st and 2nd Claimants proceeding in a Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP 21 TX 3314 and AP 21 BB 6162 at which time Songa Guru Ashok Kumar driving the Tractor when the defacto complainant sat on the left side of the

Engine and when they are leading towards Seshareddypalle village at which time the above said driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and tried to save the buffaloes which time across the road due to which he lost his control over the tractor as a result of which the

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -5- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

Tractor and Trailer turned turtle consequent to which the defacto complainant sustained injury and driver of the

Tractor i.e., Songa Guru Ashok Kumar died on the spot under the Trailer or not?

2.Whether the 2nd Respondent is liable to pay compensation since the Tractor and Trailer was driven by violating the terms of insurance policy or not?

3.Whether the Petitioner / Claimant is entitled to any compensation or not ?

4.To what relief?

6. On behalf of Claimants, P.W 1 and P.W.2 examined and

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10 are marked and on behalf of contesting 2 nd

Respondent, R.W 1 is examined and Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 marked.

7.Heard on both sides.

8.The learned counsel for the Claimant argued, by drawing attention of this Court to prove the contents of Claim Petition as well as written statement that:

“The deceased Songa Guru Ashok Kumar being aged about 21 years, unmarried and being driver died in the Tractor driving by falling under Trailer and that even though the deceased is the driver of the Tractor and responsible for his death by driving in a rash and negligent manner is a 3rd party to the Insurance Policy and that the police also filed

Final Report against the deceased as abated and when the deceased is a 3rd party to the Insurance Policy, the Claimants being parents and brother of the deceased are rightly entitled for compensation and while submitting arguments filed citations i.e., Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil

Appeal No.5826/2011 held in between Mukund Dewangan Vs

Oriental Insurance Company with several SLPs dt.03.07.2017, another Supreme Court decision in Pranay

Sethy’s case, 2020 (1) AnWR 428 ( Bom), 2019(2) AnWR 448

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -6- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

(Bom), Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in

Swaran Singh and other’s case, 2019 (2) AnWR 451 (D.B.)

T.S and A.P, Judgment of the Delhi District Court in Ranju

Devi and others Vs Sarvjeet dt.05.10.2021 and down loaded copy of “Supreme Court lays down norms for computation of accident claim” and hence prayed to decree the O.P by granting compensation.”

9.The learned counsel for the contesting 2nd Respondent filed written arguments apart from making oral submissions and argued that :

“As per Ex.A.1 (Attested copy of F.I.R) and Final Report as well as admissions in evidence that the deceased being the driver of the tractor and trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and caused accident in which he himself died and as such the deceased driver is not a 3rd party to the Insurance Policy and that as per Motor

Vehicles Act, the driver – cum - owner or driver will not come under 3rd party and for example if there is involvement of two vehicles and driver of another vehicle to whom accident occured will become 3rd party and that the 1st Respondent being owner violated the terms of policy by allowing the deceased driver without having valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor and trailer and also argued that as per Insurance Policy, no premium paid for additional driver and while submitting arguments filed citations i.e., 2007 (1) Supreme 609 and another judgment of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in National Insurance company Vs Ashalatha

Bowmik and others in Civil Appeal No. 9100 / 2018 dt.31.08.2018 and hence prayed to dismiss the claim petition.”

10. Issue No.1:-

In the case of claim petition seeking compensation by

the victims of the deceased who died in a road accident, it has

to be decided whether the accident occured due to rash and

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -7- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

negligent driving of the offending vehicle and whether the

offending vehicle was insured with any Insurance Company and

the income of the deceased person who died in the accident in

order to ascertain the compensation to be awarded to the

victims of the deceased person.

11.As seen from the rival contentions of parties to the Motor vehicle Original Petition i.e., Claim Petition, there is no dispute in

respect of occurrence of accident in which the deceased died by

name Songa Ashok Kumar but there is keen contest from the 2 nd

Respondent’s Insurance Company as to whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation in view of the deceased being the son of 1st and 2nd claimants and brother of 3rd claimant himself drove the tractor and died under the trailer without having any valid and effective driving license and that the deceased is not a 3 rd party to the

Insurance Policy and so this Tribunal would make a focus on the fact deciding whether the Claimants being legal representatives of the deceased are entitled for any compensation or not.

12. To substantiate the Claimants version, the 2nd claimant being the mother of deceased examined as P.W.1 in chief examination by way of affidavit as usual reiterated the entire contents of Claim Petition which brief facts this Tribunal already discussed in the above paras as such again not inclined to narrate the same in order to avoid repeatance of allegations and apart from that marked Attested copy of F.I.R,

Attested copy of Inquest Report, Attested copy of P.M Report,

Attested copy of MVI Report, Attested copy of Final Report,

Original driving license of the deceased, Original Mark List of

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -8- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

the deceased, Original pass port of the deceased, Original

Aadhar card of the deceased, Original Birth Certificate of the

deceased as Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.10.

13.The Claimants, in support of their version examined the defacto complainant and eye witness to the occurrence of offence as

P.W.2 in chief examination by way of affidavit as usual reiterated the entire important contents of Claim Petition but deviating in respect

of causing accident in a rash and negligent driving by the

deceased by narrating that the deceased Songa Ashok Kumar being his cousin brother died in a tractor accident and the said

Ashok kumar driven the tractor and trailer in a normal and

moderate speed by following rules and regulations of M.V.Act

and due to sudden appearance of buffaloes across the road the deceased uncontrolled the vehicle as a result it was turned turtle and the deceased died by falling under the tractor and trailer.

14. Now this Tribunal would also like to discuss the evidence of 2nd

Respondent’s Insurance Company in order to marshal the evidence as and when necessary at relevant point of time. The Legal Executive of the 2 nd Respondent’s Insurance Company examined as R.W.1 in chief examination by way of affidavit as usual reiterated the entire important contents of written statement which brief facts this Tribunal already discussed in the above paras as such again not inclined to narrate the same in order to avoid repeatance of allegations and apart

from that marked the Authorization Letter and True Copy of

Insurance Policy as Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2.

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -9- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

15. The learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent’s Insurance

Company cross-examined the 2nd Claimant as P.W.1 and supporting evidence as P.W.2 and among them P.W.1 admitted about knowing of contents of her chief examination affidavit which she got drafted duly instructing her counsel. The learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent’s

Insurance Company cross-examined P.w.2 in which he also admitted about got drafting the contents of his chief examination affidavit duly instructing her counsel. P.W.2 also deposed about the occurrence

of accident on Seshareddypalle village road after Railway gate

on 08-08-2017. P.W.2 also deposed that the deceased Songa

Ashok Kumar being the son of P.W.1 driven the tractor and

trailer bearing No.AP 21 TX 3134 and AP 21 DB 6162 on the date

of accident. Even though P.W.2 in his chief examination affidavit stated that the deceased Songa Ashok Kumar drove the Tractor and

Trailer in a normal and moderate speed by following Rules and

Regulations of M.V.Act, surprise to this Tribunal cross-examined about the fact stating that he noted in his complaint attached to

Ex.A.1 that the deceased Songa Ashok Kumar drove the above

said Tractor bearing No.AP 21 TX 3314 in a rash and negligent

manner with high speed and after crossing Jammalamadugu Railway gate towards Seshareddypalle road and when the buffaloes came across the road due to which the driver lost his control as a result of which the Tractor turned turtle. The Claimant filed Attested copy of Inquest Report and Attested copy of Final Investigation

Report marked as Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.5 would clearly discloses that the

deceased Songa Guru Ashok Kumar being the driver of the

above said Tractor and Trailer belonging to his relatives while

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -10- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

proceeding towards R.Pampally village drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and he lost his control when buffaloes came across the road due to which the said Tractor and Trailer turned turtle on right side of the road and the deceased died under the

Trailer and as per Attested copy of Final Investigation Report i.e.,

Ex.A.5 it clearly discloses that since the deceased Songa Guru

Ashok Kumar himself is the responsible for his death by driving

the tractor in a rash and negligent manner causing his own death and thereby the Investigating Officer filed Final Investigation

Report by referring the case as “ Abated ”.

16.The Legal Executive of 2nd Respondent’s Insurance Company in his cross-examination admitted about filing of Final Report i.e., Ex.A.5 by the Investigating Officer against the deceased driver by name Songa

Guru Ashok Kumar of the crime vehicle i.e., Tractor and Trailer bearing

No. AP 21 TX 3314 and AP 21 VV 6162. The learned counsel for the 2 nd

Respondent’s Insurance Company cross examined the 2nd

Claimant as P.W.1 and supporting witness as P.W.2 in which no where

he posed a question stating that the deceased driver by name

Songa Guru Ashok Kumar has not drove the Tractor and Trailer

in a rash and negligent manner causing accident resulting into

own death of the deceased.

17.The pleadings of written statement of 2 nd Respondent discloses that no where it was denied that the deceased driver is

not the root cause for his death due to rash and negligent

driving of the Tractor belonging to 1 st Respondent but contested

that there are violations made by the 1 st Respondent in allowing

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -11- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

the deceased driver who have no effective and valid driving license to drive the same.

18.As seen from the above oral as well as documentary evidence placed by the Claimants as well as contesting Respondent’s

Insurance Company it could be boldly said that the deceased Songa

Guru Ashok Kumar being the son of 1 st and 2 nd Claimants and

brother of 3 rd Claimant as a driver drove the above Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP 21 TX 3314 and AP 21 VV 6162 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused himself to death by got turned turtle of the Tractor and Trailer and there is no other person is the root cause for his death. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in

favour of claimant by placing rash and negligent act on the part

of deceased driver of 1 st Respondent’s vehicle i.e., Tractor and

T railer causing death to the deceased.

19. ISSUE NO.2

Since the Issue No.1 in respect of rash and negligent driving of the deceased driver of the 1st Respondent’s Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP 21 TX 3144 and AP 21 BB 6162 is concluded by this

Tribunal as such it has to be seen whether the Claimants being the parents and brother of the deceased are entitled to any compensation and to what extent.

20.Now let us discuss, whether the Insurance Policy was in force as on the date of accident in order to award compensation or not.

21.The Legal Executive of the 2nd Respondent’s Insurance

Company as R.W.1 filed Authorization letter given by the Branch

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -12- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

Manager of 2nd Respondent’s Insurance Company permitting the Legal

Executive to examine as R.W.1 to give evidence in the Court marked as

Ex.B.1 and also filed True Copy of Insurance Policy marked as

Ex.B.2 and in the cross-examination, R.W.1 admitted the fact stating that Ex.B.2 was in force as on the date of accident. This

Tribunal also perused the True Copy of Insurance Policy marked as

Ex.B.2 discloses that the 1st Respondent is the Insurer for the vehicle bearing No. AP 21 TX 3314 for a period of one year i.e., from 12-09-2016 to mid night of 11-09-2017 and the date of accident is on 08-08-2017 which covers the period of insurance.

22.As seen from the above said discussion of oral as well as documentary evidence including the pleadings of the parties to this

Claim Petition, this Tribunal has no hesitation to say that the 1 st

R espondent being the owner of the T ractor and T railer bearing

No. AP 21 TX 3314 and AP 21 VV 6162 to which the 2 nd

R espondent is the I nsurer who admitted that Insurance P olicy

was in force as on the date of occurrence of offence.

23. Now let us discuss, whether the Petitioners / Claimants being the parents and brother of the deceased Songa Guru Ashok

Kumar are entitled to any compensation for the death of deceased in the accident and to what extent?

24.To resolve this issue, it has to be discussed about the

age of the deceased as well as his earning capacity as on the

date of accident and under which whether it has to be compensated to the Petitioners / Claimants.

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -13- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

25.It is the contest of the Claimants and evidence of 2nd

Claimant as well as supporting witness i.e., P.W.2 that the deceased

was hale and healthy and aged about 21 years as on the date of

accident and being studied degree education working as driver as on the date of accident.

26.The Claimants filed Original Driving License and

Original Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and

Deaths, Jammalamadugu Municipality of Kadapa District marked as

Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.10 which would go to show that the deceased

Songa Guru Ashok Kumar’s date of birth is 10-06-1996 which

means the deceased has completed 20 years as on the date of

accident i.e., 08-08-2017. Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent’s

Insurance Company cross examined in which nowhere posed any question either to P.W.1 or P.W.2 disputed about either Ex.A.6 and

Ex.A.10 or its contents. So this Tribunal has no hesitation to say that the deceased Songa Guru Ashok Kumar’s age is 20 years as on the date of accident and accordingly this Tribunal fixed the aged of deceased

Ashok Kumar as 20 years.

27.Now let us discuss whether the deceased Songa Ashok

Kumar having valid and effective driving license to drive the Tractor and

Trailer as on the date of accident.

28.The Claimants filed Attested Copy of Final Investigation

Report and Original Driving License marked as Ex.A5 and Ex.A.6

to show that the deceased Ashok Kumar having valid and effective driving license. The Ex.A.5 i.e., Attested copy of Final Investigation

Report discloses that the case against the deceased Songa Ashok

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -14- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

Kumar registered in Cr.No.274/2017 of Jammalamadugu (U/G) P.S

for offences under Sec.337 and Sec. 304-A I.P.C and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed Final Investigation Report and closed the case as “Abated”. The Investigating Officer is nowhere noted in Ex.A.5 that the deceased has no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident to drive the Tractor and Trailer and so he has shown the section of law as Sec.337 and Sec.304-A of I.P.C and not shown the provisions of M.V.Act i.e., Sec.3 r/w Sec.181 of M.V.Act. The Claimants, to prove the driving license to the deceased, filed Original Driving License marked as Ex.A.6 which would go to show that the deceased Asok Kumar possessing

Driving License for Light Motor Vehicle (Non Transport), Motor

Cycle with gear for a period from 16-12-2016 to 23-07-2034 and

for Transport Vehicle for a period from 16-1202016 to 15-12-

2019. So there is no violation of terms and conditions of Insurance

Policy by the 1st Respondent made by the 1st Respondent.

29.Even though the 2nd Respondent’s Insurance Company contested that the 1st Respondent committed violation of terms of

Insurance Policy, it has not placed any documentary proof to establish the violation whereas on the other hand, the Claimants established their version that the deceased having driving license as on the date of accident.

30.Now let us discuss the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the Petitioners / Claimants for the death of deceased Songa

Guru Ashok Kumar.

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -15- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

31.The Claimants, to show the income of the deceased Ashok

Kumar, examined the 2nd Claimant as P.W.1 who in her chief examination affidavit and their pleadings stated that the deceased Ashok Kumar used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month working as driver to cars, jeeps, sumos, etc., The P.W.1 in her cross examination deposed that she has not

filed any document to show that her deceased son getting

Rs.15,000/- per month being working as Driver.

32.At this juncture, this Tribunal would like to rely on (2022) 1

SCC 198 = 2021 (6) ALT 116 = 2021 ACJ 2554 = 2022 1 SCC(Cri)

204 held in between CHANDRA @ CHANDA @ CHANDRARAM & ANR

Vs. MUKESH KUMAR YADAV & ORS wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in para 10 that :

“In the case of Minu Rout & Anr. v. Satya Pradyumna

Mohapatra & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 695 this Court while dealing with the claim relating to an accident which occurred on 08.11.2004 has taken the salary of the driver of light motor vehicle at Rs.6000/- per month. In this case the accident was on 27.02.2016 and it is clearly proved that the deceased was in possession of heavy vehicle driving licence and was driving such vehicle on the day of accident. Keeping in mind the enormous growth of vehicle population and demand for good drivers and by considering oral evidence on record we may take the income of the deceased at Rs.8000/- per month for the purpose of loss of dependency. Deceased was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident and as he was on fixed salary, 40% enhancement is to be made towards loss of future prospects.”

33.As seen from the above said citation the Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with income of the driver of light motor vehicle

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -16- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

in the year 2004 as per 2013) 10 SCC 695 basing on which the Hon’ble

Apex Court fixed the income of driver for heavy vehicle as Rs.8,000/- per month for the year 2016 as per (2022) 1 SCC 198. In the instant Claim

Petition it is not in dispute about the avocation of deceased

Ashok Kumar as driver as per pleadings of 2nd Respondent’s Insurance

Company but contested that the deceased has no valid and effective driving license to drive specific class of tractor and trailer and so it is already in the above paras about the status of deceased as driver.

Since the Hon’ble Apex Court fixed the monthly income of driver

as Rs.6,000/- for the year 2004 as such it could be said that the

monthly income of the deceased can be safely be fixed at

Rs.8,000/- for the year 2017. Hence this Tribunal has no hesitation to say that the monthly income of the deceased has to be fixed at

Rs.8000/- for the year 2017 and accordingly this Tribunal fixed the

monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- in the instant

Claim Petition.

34. In view of the above citation of Hon’ble Apex Court, this

Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month and as per above said citation of Apex Court, since the deceased Songa

Ashok Kumar was aged about 20 years as on the date of accident as such 40% of enhancement on the above said fixed income of Rs.8,000/- per month has to be calculated to assess the compensation in view of above citation of Hon’ble Apex Court.

35.The monthly income of the deceased Songa Ashok Kumar is

Rs.8,000/- + Rs.8,000/- X 40 / 100 = Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/- =

Rs.11,200/- per month. As per citation of Hon’ble Apex Court i.e., (2009) 6 SCC 121 held in between in Sarla Varma (SMT) and others

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -17- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another,the deceased is the bachelor as such 50% of personal and living expenses has to be deducted from the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal as such it will become Rs.11,200/- / 2 = Rs.5,600/- per month and annual income of the deceased is Rs.5,600/- X 12 = Rs.67,200/-.

36.Since the age of the deceased Songa Ashok Kumar is fixed

as 20 years as on the date of accident and in view of the above citation

of Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 2009 SC 3104 = 2009 (3) ALD 83 SC = (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Trilok Chand i.e., 1996 (4) SCC 362, the multiplier has to be applied as 18 for the age between 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years.

Hence compensation fixed at Rs.67,200/- X 18 = Rs.12,09,600/-. As per citations of Hon’ble Apex Court, the Tribunal has to award the loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, this Tribunal

fixed at Rs.73,000/- (loss of estate = Rs.16,500/- + loss of

consortium = Rs.40,000/- + funeral expenses = Rs.16,500/- =

Total Rs.73,000/-) and in total this Tribunal arrived the compensation to be awarded to the Petitioners / Claimants in view of the death of the deceased Songa Ashok Kumar in the accident is at Rs.12,82,600/-

(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Two Thousands Six Hundred only)

(Rs.12,09,600 + Rs.73,000/-).

37. Now it has to be seen who is liable to pay the compensation to the Claimants i.e., whether it is both the Respondents or not.

38.This Tribunal already discussed in the above paras that the deceased Songa Ashok Kumar drove the 1st Respondent’s Tractor and

Trailer bearing No.AP21 TX 3314 and AP21 BB 6162 which was insured with the 2nd Respondent’s Insurance Company to pay the compensation to indemnify the 1st Respondent as there are no violations of insurance

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -18- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

policy. Hence the 1st and 2nd Respondents being owner and insurer of the above Tractor and Trailer as such both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation. Hence this issue No.2 also answered in favour of Claimants.

39.The learned Counsel for the Claimants filed citations i.e.,

Mukund Dewagan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited dt.03.07.2017, National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi dt.31.10.2017, 2020 (1) ANWR 428 Bombay, National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and Others dt.05.01.2004, 2019 (2)

ANWR TS & AP 451, 2019 (2) ANWR 448 (BOM), Delhi District Court in

Ranju Devi and Others Vs. Sarvjeet dt.05.10.2021, Supreme Court lays on norms for computation of accident claim. With great respect to the

Hon’ble Apex Court, Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for the State of

Telangana and A.P. and Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, this Tribunal would like to say that these citations have no application to the present facts and circumstances to the instant OP.

40.The Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent’s Insurance

Company also filed citations 2007 (0) ACJ 818 = AIR 2007 SC 1054. With great respect to the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Tribunal would like to say that the citation has no application to the present facts and circumstances to the instant OP.

41. As per claim of the Petitioners / Claimants, the

Petitioners / Claimants claimed for compensation of

Rs.9,00,000/- but this Tribunal inclined to award more than the

compensation claimed by the Petitioners / Claimants as per

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2013 (9) SCC 54 = 2013 (4)

ALT 35 = 2013 SCC Online SC 339 held in between RAJESH AND

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -19- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

ORS Vs. RAJBIR SINGH AND ORS wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court

observed that the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal is empowered

to grant compensation in excess than the claim made by the

Claimant in his claim petition.

42. Issue No.3:-

Since the above issues in respect of causing accident to the deceased Songa Ashok Kumar due to his own rash and negligent driving of the 1st Respondent’s Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP21 TX 3144 and

AP21 BB 6162 as such the Claimants being the parents of

deceased and brother of deceased are entitled for compensation

from the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents are liable to pay the

compensation claimed by the Claimants as such this issue also answered in favour of Petitioners / Claimants.

In the result, this claim petition is allowed by awarding

compensation of Rs.12,82,600/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty

Two Thousands Six Hundred only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e., 06.04.2018 till the date of realisation.

2. The 2ndRespondent shall deposit the above said compensation amount within one month from the date of this Judgment failing which the 2nd Respondent has to pay the said compensation with interest at 9% per annum.

3. After deposit of the above said compensation amount of

Rs.12,82,600/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Two

Thousands Six Hundred only) with interest at 7.5% p.a.

from the date of Claim Petition till the date of deposit by the 2nd Respondent, the 1st and 2nd Petitioners / 1st and 2nd

Claimants being parents of the deceased are entitled to

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) each with accrued interest and the 3rd Petitioner / Claimant being the brother of the deceased is entitled to Rs.2,82,600/-.

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -20- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

4. The 1st and 2nd Petitioners / 1st and 2nd Claimants are at liberty to withdraw their share of Rs.4,00,000/- each with accrued interest and the remaining their share of

Rs.1,00,000/- each shall be deposited in Nationalized Bank for a period of one year and thereafter they are at liberty to withdraw the same with accrued interest. The share of 3rd

Petitioner / 3rd Claimant being minor of Rs.2,82,600/- shall be fixed in the Nationalized Bank till his attaining majority and thereafter he is at liberty to withdraw his share of amount of Rs.2,82,600/- with accrued interest.

5. The Petitioners / Claimants are directed to pay the deficit of court fee on Rs.3,82,600/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Two Thousands Six Hundred only) within one month from the date of Judgment and thereafter the decree will be prepared and in case if the Petitioners / Claimants fail to pay the deficit of court fee within the stipulated period of one month, the decree will be prepared for Rs.9,00,000/- only with costs and interest as directed above.

6. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.6,000/-.”

Partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and partly typed by me and partly typed to my dictation to the Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me, in open court on this the 11th day of April, 2022.

Digitally signed by

PODARALLA

PODARALLA VASU

VASUDate: 2022.04.11 18:27:49 +0530 Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-II Addl. District Judge,

Kadapa at Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONERS

P.W.1: Songa Lakshmi Devi.

P.W.2: Ganta Naresh Kumar.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.A.1: Attested copy of F.I.R

Ex.A.2: Attested copy of Inquest Report.

Ex.A.3: Attested copy of P.M Report.

Ex.A.4: Attested copy of MVI Report.

Ex.A.5: Attested copy of Final Report.

Ex.A.6: Original driving license of the deceased.

MVOP.No. 98/2018 -21- II Addl. Dist. Judge’s Court,

Proddatur, Dt.11-04-2022.

Ex.A.7: Original Mark List of the deceased.

Ex.A.8: Original pass port of the deceased.

Ex.A.9: Original Aadhar card of the deceased.

Ex.A.10: Original Birth Certificate of the deceased.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR 2 ND RESPONDENT

R.W.1: Jagarlapudi Lakshmi Siva Narayana.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR 2 ND RESPONDENT

Ex.B.1: Authorization Letter.

Ex.B.2: True Copy of Insurance Policy.

Digitally signed by

PODARALLA

PODARALLA VASU

VASUDate: 2022.04.11 18:28:07 +0530 Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl. District Judge,

Kadapa at Proddatur.

Crl.M.P.No. 124 of 2022 1 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court,

Cr.No. 79/2022 of MYD P.S, Proddatur, dt. 11-04-2022.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

KADAPA AT PRODDATUR.

Present:- Sri P. Vasu, II Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Kadapa at Proddatur.

Dated : Monday, this the 11 th day of April , 2022.

Crl.M.P.No.124 of 2022

in Cr.No. 79 of 2022 of Mydukur P.S

Kudala Viswanath, S/o. Late K.H. Prasada Rao, Age: 59 years, Hindu, R/at D.No.2/274, T.B.Road, Near Ram Nagar, Proddatur, Kadapa District, Now working as Divisional Engineer, Guntakal Muncipality, Ananthapuram District. … Petitioner / A4.

Vs.

State : S.H.O., Mydukur P.S

... Respondent/Complainant.

This petition coming on 07-04-2022 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Raghunatha Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner / A.4and learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Sk. Mubeena Begum) for the State on behalf Respondent / Complainant, having heard on both sides, having perused the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :-

O R D E R

This is a bail application filed under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C on behalf of the Petitioner / A.4 to grant Anticipatory bail involved in the above case in

Cr.No.79/2022 of Mydukur P.S for the offence punishable under Sec.120(B),

Sec.420 and Sec.409 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.

2. The brief grounds sought for grant of bail :- “The Petitioner / A4 has not committed any offence as he is falsely implicated in this case and that the Petitioner / A.4 is not at all a Divisional Engineer of Mydukur Municipality during the period of works carried out the works covered in item No.1 to Item No.29 of Mydukur Municipality as the Petitioner / A.4 was working as Divisional Engineer in Public Works Department in Proddatur Municipality and that the Petitioner / A.4 is only inspecting authority of the works done by

Crl.M.P.No. 124 of 2022 2 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court,

Cr.No. 79/2022 of MYD P.S, Proddatur, dt. 11-04-2022.

Mydukur Municipality and as such he is no way concerned with the misappropriation of funds in Mydukur Municipality and that the Petitioner / A.4 is not the custodian of any record like M - Book etc., relating to Mydukur Municipality during the above said period of works and also he is not competent to prepare bills and payments made by Mydukur Municipality and that the District Collector has issued award certificate to the Petitioner / A.4 in the year 2016 as well as he got best Engineer award from the Institution of Engineers in the year 2013. One B. Narasimhulu (A.3) being incharge of works in execution of works is responsible person as he is maintaining M-Book and records in respect of recording of works as such A.3 is custodian of records and that A.3 being Assistant Engineer did not produce any record for vigilance inspection and that the concerned clerk by name Vinay Kumar @ Pavan kumar reported that A.3 not handed over any record pertaining to the alleged works and also stated A.3 not produced any record even till today which was retained with him and that there is no entrustment to the Petitioner / A.4 warranting of offence under Sec.409 or Sec.406 of IPC to the Petitioner /A.4 and that the Petitioner / A.4 being aged about 59 years, suffering with hyper tension and diabetics and if the Respondent / Police arrests the Petitioner / A.4, the Police may use 3rd degree method and that almost investigation is completed except filing of charge sheet is pending as all the witnesses are interested witnesses as such the question of tampering does not arise and the Petitioner / A.4 is ready and wiling to furnish reasonable sureties to the satisfaction of the Court and hence prayed to grant bail to the Petitioner / A.4.”

3. The case of prosecution, in brief, are that :- “The Commissioner of Mydukur Municipality gave a complaint to the S.H.O, Mydukur to take necessary action against the Officers by registering a criminal case and the said Commissioner noted in the said complaint as follows:- “The Director of Municipal Administration Department, A.P Guntur instructed the Commissioner of Mydukur Municipality on 23.10.2009 stating that there is Vigilance Report No.16 alleging that one K.V.Krishna Reddy being Ex-Municipal Commissioner and present Commissioner of Badvel along with three other officers of Mydukur Municipality, Kadapa District involved in irregularities and irregular payments for the works carried out and according to which the Commissioner of Mydukur

Crl.M.P.No. 124 of 2022 3 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court,

Cr.No. 79/2022 of MYD P.S, Proddatur, dt. 11-04-2022.

Municipality requested the S.H.O., Mydukur in writing to register a case and also requested the S.H.O that he will provide necessary documents if the S.H.O requires on perusal of report and accordingly, the S.H.O, Mydukur (U/G) PS requested to provide Vigilance Report No.68 with Annexures No.1 to 10, Roc.No. R-28-77493/2019/C3/2 Dt.11.10.2019 of Director of Municipal Administration, Guntur as well as memo No.2615752/VIG/III, 1/2019 Dt.09.09.2019 of A.P. Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department as well as GORT No.563 of Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Dt.09.9.2019 and that the above said documents received by the Mydukur Municipality sent from

Principal Secretary of Municipal Administration and Urban

Development Department, Guntur and requested S.H.O , Mydukur to register a criminal case against the concerned officers upon which a case in Cr.No.79/2022 under Sec.120-B, Sec.420, Sec.409 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and investigation is pending for arrest of Petitioner / A.4 and others.”

4. Heard on both sides (Sri P.Raghunatha Reddy and the learned

Addl.P.P (SK. Mubeena Begum).

5.The learned counsel for the Petitioner / A4 argued by drawing attention of this Court to the contents of complaint, F.I.R, Remand Report of A.2 and A.3, that A.3 in this case is the person of custodian of M-Book and other records and also submitted that there are 29 works entrusted to A.1 and there is Vigilance Report in which there is no role of Petitioner / A.4 as he is not the custodian of relevant records and the Petitioner / A.4 is having only supervising authority for the works carried but A.3 is in-charge of records and authorized employee for the works to be done, estimate and calling for tenders and he will issue works and also drawn the attention of this Court stating that there is no notice issued to the Petitioner / A.4 from the Vigilance and Enforcement

Department of A.P and that the Petitioner / A.4 is nothing to do with the alleged misappropriation.

Crl.M.P.No. 124 of 2022 4 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court,

Cr.No. 79/2022 of MYD P.S, Proddatur, dt. 11-04-2022.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner / A.4 drawn the attention of this

Court to some of the paragraphs of the Remand Report of A.2 and A.3 and submitted that there is negligence on the part of A.4 in supervising the works as he believed the works with the support of A.3 and due to lack of supervision of Petitioner / A.4 cannot be punished and also drawn the attention of this

Court to all recommendations against the officers in which what are the abstracts of recommendations alleged to be committed by A.1 to A.3 and

Petitioner / A.4 and there is only allegation of Petitioner / A.4 that he failed to supervise the execution of works sanctioned in Mydukur Municipality and he has given scope for misappropriation and for which the Petitioner / A.4 cannot be prosecuted for the offences alleged against him and almost investigation is completed and that there is no role of Petitioner / A.4 in the involvement of misappropriation of offence alleged by the prosecution as such bail may be granted to the Petitioner / A.4 for his release.

6. The learned Addl. Public prosecutor, after receiving notice, opposed for bail by filing C.D along with requisition given to her to oppose bail and submitted that the Petitioner / A.4 being in-charge Commissioner of

Mydukur Municipality colluded with A.1 to A.3 and other contractors and investigation is not yet concluded and the very presence of Petitioner/A.4 for custodian interrogation is not necessary as there is nothing to elicit from him and finally argued that this Petition may be allowed by granting anticipatory bail.

7.Now the point for consideration is :-

“Whether this bail application be allowed to release the

Petitioner / A.4 on anticipatory bail or not?

POINT:-

8.On perusal of the material available on record including complaint,

F.I.R, C.D along with requisition and other material given to the learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor to oppose bail it discloses that the Petitioner / A.4 was not yet apprehended and apprehending humiliation in the hands of police, this

Crl.M.P.No. 124 of 2022 5 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court,

Cr.No. 79/2022 of MYD P.S, Proddatur, dt. 11-04-2022.

anticipatory bail application filed. The Petitioner / A.4 filed memo along with copy of Remand Report of A.2 and A.3 as well as C.D. produced by the learned

Addl. P.P. given to her by the Investigating Officer to oppose bail.

9.As seen from Requisition and CD along with copy of Remand

Report of A.2 and A.3 and other material available on record, it discloses that there is allegation against the Petitioner / A.4 about his failure to supervise the execution of works relating to Mydukur Municipality which have given scope for misappropriation. The learned counsel for the Petitioner / A.4 also argued that the Petitioner / A.4 has done a mistake by not supervising properly on the belief of A.3 who may work honestly.

10.As seen from Requisition along with Remand Report of A.2 and

A.3, it discloses that A.3 being Assistant Engineer has to forward any material to the Municipal Commissioner through Petitioner / A.4 being Deputy Executive

Engineer. As seen from Requisition as well as terms to oppose bail it discloses that the Petitioner / A.4 and others were alleged to be committed a cheating and criminal breach of trust being public servants by conspiring with each other apart from contractors. As seen from Requisition, it discloses that investigation is pending for examining some more witnesses and if the anticipatory bail is granted to the Petitioner / A.4, he may tamper the evidences by managing the key witnesses and investigation is also pending for identification of bank accounts of contractors relating to 29 works which physical verification has to be conducted.

11. In view of above said observation and discussion of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, this Court found that it is not just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner /

A.4 as because the Vigilance and Enforcement Department found some prima facie against the Petitioner / A.4 and others in the alleged misappropriation in making payments for the works which were not carried out and in which

Crl.M.P.No. 124 of 2022 6 II Addl. Sessions Judge’s Court,

Cr.No. 79/2022 of MYD P.S, Proddatur, dt. 11-04-2022.

circumstances this Court not found any grounds or reasons to allow this application.

In the result, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and partly typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me, on this the 11 th day of April, 2022. Digitally signed PODARALLAby PODARALLA VASU VASU

Date: 2022.04.11

18:23:57 +0530 II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. Copy to:

1) The S.H.O., Mydukur (U/G) P.S.

2) The learned counsel for the Petitioner / A.4.

In the Court of :II Additional District and Sessions Judge Proddatur

Case No. :MVOP/0000111/2021 Donkala Bashirun Vs Manipati Rambabu

Date : 11-04-2022

Business: I.A.No. /2022 (U/o.109 ) Heard on both sides (SK.Riyzauddin and DRSR). It is an application to advance the above OP from 09.05.2022 to this day i.e., 11.04.2022 in order the settle the matter before Lok Adalath and in view of endorsement of no objection by the learned counsel for contesting Respondent, it is just and essential to allow this application. Hence this application is allowed. Since I.A.No. /2022 is allowed as such the above OP is advanced from 09.05.2022 to this day i.e., 11.04.2022 in view of the matter likely to be settled before Lok Adalath. Learned counsel counsel for Petitioner (SK.Riyazuddin) filed memo stating the in view of settlement of above OP the Claimants are not proceeding against 1st Respondent. Learned counsel for Claimants filed memo stating that the matter is settled and it may refer to Lok Adalath. Hence referred to Lok Adalath. The Claimants and their learned counsel (SK.Riyazuddin) and 2nd Respondent’s Authorized Signatory by name Sri D.Raja Sekhar Reddy appeared before this Tribunal. The Petitioners and 3rd Respondent’s Authorized Signatory filed terms of compromise which are read over to the above persons who admitted the same and represented that they have settled their dispute in respect of compensation and after read over the contents of compromise, their signatures/Thumb impressions are obtained along with their identification by their respective Learned counsels. The following are the brief terms of compromise:- i) That the 2nd Respondent agreed to pay Rs.7,10,000-00(Rupees Seven Lakhs Ten Thousand only) to the 1st to 3rd Petitioners/ 1st to 3rd Claimants towards full and final settlement of the above O.P for which the 1st to 3rd Petitioners/ 1st to 3rd Claimants agreed for the same. ii) That the 2nd Respondent agreed to pay the award amount within one month from the date of this award for which the 1st to 3rd Petitioners/ 1st to 3rd Claimants agreed for the same. iii) That the 2nd Respondent agreed that their company has no objection to receive the refund of court fee of Rs. 7,360/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Only) by the 1st Claimant on her behalf and on behalf of 2nd and 3rd claimants for which the 1st to 3rd Petitioners/ 1st to 3rd Claimants agreed for the same. iv) That as per the terms of settlement between claimants, the 1st Claimant being the wife of deceased is agreed to receive an amount of Rs.4,10,000/-( Rupees Four lakhs Ten Thousands only) out of settlement amount and 2nd and 3rd Claimants are being the daughters of the deceased are agreed to receive an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-(One Lakh Fifty thousands only) each towards their share for which the 1st to 3rd Petitioners/ 1st to 3rd Claimants agreed for the same. v) That the 2nd Respondent company has agreed to pay the amount of Rs.4,10,000/- directly to the 1st Claimant and an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-(One Lakh Fifty thousand only) each directly to 2nd and 3rd claimants as agreed above either by way of demand draft or cheques within one month from the receipt of this award for which the 1st to 3rd Claimants agreed for the same. vi) Accordingly Award is passed in terms of compromise. Hence the matter is settled before Lok Adalath and accordingly an Award is passed in terms of compromise. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 11-04-2022 II Additional District and Sessions Judge Proddatur

In the Court of :II Additional District and Sessions Judge Proddatur

Case No. :EP/0000111/2019 Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd, Kadapa, Rep by its Authorized Signatory Mr.C.Siva Sankar Prasad Vs M.Raja Sekhar Reddy

Date : 13-04-2022

Business: Process not paid before Superintendent in cause list-II and posted for cause list -I for necessary orders. No representation for D.Hr. Hence this E.P. is dismissed. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED Disposal Date: 13-04-2022 II Additional District and Sessions Judge Proddatur

In the Court of :II Additional District and Sessions Judge Proddatur

Case No. :EP/0000092/2021 Shriram City Union Finance Ltd, Proddatur Vs P.Surya Narayana

Date : 13-04-2022

Business: Process not paid before Superintendent in cause list-II and posted for cause list -I for necessary orders. No representation for D.Hr. Hence this E.P. is dismissed. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED Disposal Date: 13-04-2022 II Additional District and Sessions Judge Proddatur