Sri. PV. Krishnamurthy

 IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE FOR 

THE TRIAL OF JHCBBC CUM ADDL FAMILY COURT CUM XXIII ADDL 

CHIEF JUDGE: HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 2nd day of May, 2012

Present: Sri P.V.Krishna Murthy, B.A., B.L., Addl Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC cum Addl Family Court cum XXIII Addl Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

MC.No.199/2008

Between:

Smt.Sree Jyothi W/o.G.B.Lazaru Jana Aged 25 years Occ: Household, R/o.L­28, O.U.Staff Quarters,

Hyderabad. .. .. Petitioner

 AND

G.B.Lazaru Jana S/o.Jana David Aged about 30 years, Occ:Govt.Servant, R/o.H.No.180, Kupa Nagar, Mantur Road,

Hubli, Karnataka State. ….. Respondent

This petition coming on 16­4­2012 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Balaraj & Advocates, counsel for the petitioner, and M/s.G.L.Narsimha Rao, & Advocates, counsel for the respondent and having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1)The brief averments of the petition are as follows: 

The respondent married the petitioner in Hubli on 5­8­2006 after receiving five lakh rupees cash, gold, household articles and furniture. Ever since she was being harassed and subjected to cruelty. The health of the petitioner was badly affected and an abortion occurred. The respondent and his family members were demanding the petitioner to get additional dowry of five lakh rupees. The conciliation initiated by the petitioner failed due to the attitude of the respondent. 

The petitioner has no means to maintain herself. Her parents are aged and cannot maintain. The respondent is working as Personal Officer in Railways earning more than Rs.25,000/­. He has income from the properties also. Hence the petition claiming a monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/­

2.The brief averments of the counter affidavit of the respondent are as follows:

2

The respondent married the petitioner. The respondent has not received dowry, gold and other household articles as alleged. The petitioner joined the respondent while he was at Hubli. As such, this court has no jurisdiction. The petitioner was not harassed. The petitioner is a psycho patient. She used to act with an imbalance mind. Once she lodged a complaint before Women Police Station, 

Hubli and the police pacified her and sent her back to the respondent. The petitioner was a quarrelsome person. The petitioner never co­operated with the respondent. The petitioner deserted the respondent due to her mental disorder and due to her illicit contact with others. She got pregnancy before the marriage. When she complained pains the doctors who examined her reported that she is carrying 5 months baby. By 19­1­2007 the petitioner was in the six month of pregnancy. This shows her illicit nature. As such, she deserted the company of the respondent. The respondent is working as Head Clerk and not officer. The parents of the petitioner are financially sound. There are no merits. Hence the petition may be dismissed. 

3.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the petitioner is entitled to maintenance as prayed for”?.

4.On behalf of the petitioner Pw­1 was examined and Exs.P­1 to P­3 were marked. On behalf of the respondent Rw­1 and Rw­2 were examined and Exs.R­1 to 

R­4 were marked.

POINT:

5.This court disposed the matter on merits on 19­11­2009 by allowing the petition. However, the respondent filed a revision against the order of this court. 

The Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad allowed the revision and remanded the matter directing a fresh disposal of the case. After remand, Pw­1 was cross examined further and Ex.R­4 was marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent. The matter was heard, and is disposed afresh. 

6.The petitioner deposed as Pw­1. In her evidence, she deposed to the marriage, to her living with the respondent, to the harassment and the ill­treatment of the respondent, to the lodging of a complaint to the police, to the avocation and earnings of the respondent and to the facts of the case. The respondent deposed as 

Rw­1. In his evidence, he deposed to the marriage, to the adulterous conduct of the petitioner, to the termination of the pregnancy, to his income and to the loans contracted by him. He also deposed to the desertion of the petitioner. Rw­2 is the 3 doctor of Hubli. She deposed that she treated Pw­1 from 19­1­2007 and that she terminated the pregnancy at the instance of the patient and others. Pw­1 after her recall deposed that she wrote letter under Ex.R­4, but at the point of knife. 

7. Ex.P­1 is the alleged letter dated 12­11­2007 written by the respondent and handed over to the petitioner. Ex.P­2 is a receipt issued by the Women Police 

Station. Ex.P­3 is a receipt for issuing of copy of the complaint. Ex.R­1 is the loan account statement of the respondent. Ex.R­2 is the computerized pay slip. Ex.R­3 is the permission granted by the railway authorities for purchase of property by the respondent. At the stage of the arguments, the respondent preferred revision against an order of this court and the matter was stayed. However, the stay granted expired by 9­11­2009. The respondent did not argue the matter on 12­11­2009 and 13­11­2009 as adjourned by this court. As such, the matter was posted for orders treating the arguments of the respondent as heard. Ex.R­4 is a copy of the letter written by the petitioner to the police to the effect that she will not threaten the respondent and attempt to suicide. 

8.As per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court the matter was remanded and the arguments of both sides were heard. The respondent questioned the jurisdiction of this court. The respondent contended that both parties lived in Hubli in Karnataka and as such this court has no jurisdiction to try this matter. The petitioner claimed that she is a resident of Hyderabad city in her petition. The respondent has not adduced any evidence on the point. The respondent has not suggested to Pw­1 that she is not a resident of Hyderabad. As per the law, temporary residence is also sufficient for filing an application under 125 Cr.P.C. 

In the absence of any evidence, the plea of the respondent has to be rejected. I hold that this court has jurisdiction to try the matter.

9.The next ground of defence is adultery. There is no dispute with regard to the date of marriage. Pw­1 was hospitalized on 19­1­2007. The pregnancy was terminated and Pw­1 was discharged on 27­1­2007. Rw­2, the doctor spoke to the above facts. According to Rw­2 the pregnancy was terminated on 23­1­2007. 

The parties were married on 5­8­2006. The respondent contended that conception by Pw­1 was not probable by that date and the said fact speaks to the adulterous life of Pw­1. However, the respondent has not attributed illicit intimacy with any other male person. The circumstances of the case do not support the contention of the respondent. Ex.P­1 is a letter of apology tendered by the respondent on 12­11­ 4 2007. This shows that the parties were together even after the date of termination of pregnancy. There was no need for the respondent to tender an apology under 

Ex.P­1 to the petitioner, if the parties were separate by that date due, to the suspicion entertained by the respondent regarding the character of his wife. This circumstance improbablises the plea of adultery. In addition, the plea of adultery is vague. Hence on the basis of the evidence, I have no hesitation to reject the plea of adultery, set up by the respondent. 

10.The petitioner contended that the respondent treated her with cruelty. As per law, unsubstantiated allegation of adultery amounts to cruelty. The respondent also attributed disobedience and cruelty to the petitioner. The respondent contended that the petitioner is mentally imbalanced and she was behaving in a queer manner with him. The respondent is relying upon Ex.R­4, an under taking given by the petitioner to the Women Police, Hubli, to the effect that she will not threaten the respondent or attempt suicide. The petitioner contended that she executed R­4 at the point of knife. However, it appears an after­thought. The petitioner has not mentioned the same in her pleading. Had, Ex.R­4 been executed under threat, the petitioner might have pleaded so in her petition. There is no reference to the above document in her petition. On the other hand, the respondent pleaded about assurance given by the petitioner to the police in para 4 of his counter. Hence on the basis of the evidence, I am of the view that Ex.R­4 was executed by the petitioner voluntarily. This document and Ex.P­1 will establish that the parties were not living happily. Both are to be blamed for the present situation. 

Ex.R­4 will establish the fact that the petitioner was also troubling the respondent. 

11.The respondent attributed that the petitioner is working and earning. 

However, no tangible evidence was adduced in this direction. As such, it can be held that the petitioner is a person without employment and salary. No other source of income was attributed to the petitioner by the respondent. Hence she is a woman unable to maintain herself. The means of the respondent are evident, from his employment. The marriage between them is subsisting. Hence the respondent has a duty to provide maintenance to the petitioner. Taking into account the attitude of both parties a reasonable amount can be fixed as monthly maintenance. 

Both parties have contributed to the separation. As such, I am inclined to grant a monthly maintenance of Rs.4000/­ to the petitioner, payable from the date of the petition i.e.23­7­2008. There shall be no order towards costs, under the circumstances of the case. The maintenance ordered above, to the petitioner is 5 payable before 5th of every calendar month. The interim monthly maintenance granted by this court if any, or by any other court in any other proceeding to the petitioner shall be adjusted to the amount granted in this case. The petitioner is directed to open a bank account and give the particulars of it to the respondent, to enable him deposit the maintenance amount directly. The point is held accordingly. 

12.In the result, the petition is allowed granting a monthly maintenance of 

Rs.4000/­ to the petitioner, payable from the date of the petition ie.23­7­2008. 

There shall be no order towards costs, under the circumstances of the case. The maintenance ordered above to the petitioner is payable before 5th of every calendar month. The interim monthly maintenance granted by this court if any, or by any other court in any other proceeding to the petitioner shall be adjusted to the amount granted in this case. The petitioner is directed to open a bank account and give the details of it to the respondent, to enable him deposit the maintenance amount directly. 

Dictated to Personal assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of May, 2012.

 ADDL.METROPLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, 

FOR THE TRIAL OF JHCBBC, ADDL.FAMILY COURT, 

XXIII ADDL.CHIEF JUDGE, HYDERABAD. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONER: Pw­1 : Smt.Sree Jyothi

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENT

Rw­1: Sri.G.B.Lazarus Jana. Rw­2: Dr.Jamuna Kanakaraya.. EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER : Ex.P­1: Signature on letter. Ex.P­2: Receipt. Ex.P­3: Receipt. EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT : Ex.R­1: Canara bank provisional interest certificate for loans. Ex.R­2: Salary slip. Ex.R­3: Permission letter from South Western Railway. Ex.R­4:Copy of complaint dated 30­5­2007 to Mahila Police Inspector, Hubli. 

Typed by A.M.S.J

1

IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,: AT HYDERABAD.

Present: Sri P.V.Krishnamurthy, B.A.,B.L., FAC IV Addl Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2012

O.P.2016/2008 Between:

1)K.Ravinder Reddy, S/o.lte Madhava Reddy aged about 30 years, occ: nil, R/o.Flat No.601, Blue Block :My home Rainbow” Apartments, Toli chowki, Hyderabad 2)R.Raghunatha Reddy, S/o. R.Narayana Reddy, aged 50 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3-62,Mamdipallyvillage, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

3)R.Swarna, W/o. R.Raghunatha Reddy, aged 43 years, occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.3- 62, Mamdipally village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

..Petitioners

A N D

1) R.Antinica Swamy, S/o.B.A.Rajendra Christajyoti aged major, occ: Business, R/o.H.No.54/1, XIII Main, 4th crosss, Doomapanahalli Hal 2nd stage, Bangalore.

2)Cholamandalam M.S.General Insurance Company Ltd., rep. By its Regional Manager, office at VVS Vintage Boulward, 5th floor, 6-3-1093, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

3)Monappa, S/o.Ramappa Rathod, aged 45years,occ:Busienss, R/o.Mucchakandi, Bangalkote taluk and district. .…Respondents

This petition is filed u/s.166 A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, to award compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of the petition and till the date of realization, and costs.

2

This petition coming for final hearing before on me, upon perusing the records and hearing the arguments of Sri K.Jagathpal Reddy, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, advocate for the Respondent

No.2, the respondent 1 and 3 remaining exparte, this Court made the following:- -:( A W A R D ):-

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

The petitioners are husband and the parents of Rama Devi who died in motor accident on 13.1.2008 at 7-00 PM due to negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.KA-03SA-4599. The vehicle belonged to R1 and was insured with R2. R3 is the owner of the tractor KA.29T-9777. The deceased was aged 23 years, and was earning Rs.22,000/- per month as a software engineer. On the day of the accident, the deceased, the 1st petitioner and others were traveling in the vehicle of R1 to Bangalore from Kunnigal, Near the petrol bunk of Mahadevpur, the tractor of R3 was also coming towards petrol bunk. The vehicle of R1 dashed the tractor causing the accident.

The inmates of the vehicle were injured. The deceased died at about 9-00

PM. The driver of R1 was prosecuted in a criminal case. The petitioners suffered on account of her untimely death. Hence the petition claiming a compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- .

2.The respondents 1 and 3 remained exparte.

3.The brief averments of the written Statement of R2 are as follows:

The averments of the petition are not correct. The accident has not occurred as mentioned in the petition. The age, avocation and income of the deceased are not correct. The accident was not due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. The petitioners are not dependants on the deceased. The driver of R1 was not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence, this respondent is not liable.

The accident was due to the negligent driving of the vehicle of R3 by its driver, Hence this respondent is not liable. The claim is high and excessive.

The respondent is entitled to take defence u/s.170 of M.V.Act. Hence the petition may be dismissed.

3

4.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial.

1Whether the deceased died in the accident on 13.1.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Toyota Qualis bearing No.KA03 459 and Tractor Trailor bearing No.KA 29T 9777?

2)Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, from whom?

3)To what relief?

5.On behalf of the petitioners, Pws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of the respondent RW1 was examined and the policy was marked as Ex.B1.

6.Issue No.1:The petitioners are the husband and parents of the deceased Rama Devi, who died in the motor accident. The deceased, the 1st petitioner and others were travelling in the vehicle of R1 on the date of the accident. As per the contents of the petition, the driver of the vehicle dashed the tractor of R3. PW.1 is the 1st petitioner. He deposed to the accident, to the injuries sustained by the deceased and to her death. PW.1 was also travelling at the time of the accident. PW.2 is the brother of PW.1. This witness also deposed to the accident. PW.3 is the 2nd petitioner. He spoke in corroboration of PW.1. RW1 has not deposed to the manner of the accident.

The petitioners are relying upon the records of the criminal case, in support.

In Ex.A1, the certified copy of First Information Report, the accident was reported to have occurred as mentioned in the petition. The vehicle in which the petitioner and others were travelling, dashed the tractor which was also proceeding in the same direction. The driver of the vehicle hitting another vehicle can only be due to the negligence. Hence, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, I hold that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of R1. Since the driver of the tractor was not negligent, R3 is not a necessary party to this proceedings. Hence, I am inclined to hold that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of R1. As such, R1 and R2 are liable to the claim jointly and severally. This issue is held accordingly.

4

7.Issue No.2: The third respondent is not liable to the claim. As such, the petition is dismissed against the third respondent, but without costs under the circumstances of the case. The Petitioners 2 and 3 are parents of the deceased, who was married to the first petitioner. After marriage, the parents of married woman cannot be considered as dependants on her. As such, the petitioners 2 and 3 are not entitled to receive compensation for the death of their married daughter as her dependants. Hence their claim is dismissed. Therefore, the first petitioner alone is found entitled to receive compensation for the death of the deceased from the respondents 1 and 2. PW.1 deposed that he was employed on the date of the accident and was getting a monthly salary of Rs.50,000/-. He admitted that he is highly educated and not dependant on his wife. There is no material to substantiate his claim that he is now without a job. Ex.A6 is the letter of appointment dated.2.1.2008. The accident occurred on 13.1.2008. The deceased was to join the company on 28.1.2008. The accident occurred 15 days prior to the joining of the deceased. Hence on the date of the accident, it can be said that the deceased was not employed. The first petitioner is not a dependant on the deceased. Therefore, he is entitled to compensation for loss of consortium, medical expenses and for loss of his wife.

Under each head, a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs is adequate to the 1st petitioner. As such, the first petitioner is granted a compensation of

Rs. 6 lakhs with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5 % from the date of the petition till realization against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Rest of the claim is dismissed. This issue is held accordingly.

8.Issue No.3:In the result, petition is allowed granting compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the 1st petitioner with proportionate cost and interest @ 7.5% from the date of the petition till realization against R1 and R2 jointly and severally. The claim of the petitioners 2 and 3 is dismissed, but without costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/-. The claim against R3 is dismissed, but without costs.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of February, 2012.

FAC IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

CUM XVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:

PW.1 :Ravinder Reddy PW.2:Venkat Narsimha Reddy PW.3:Raghunath Reddy

FOR RESPONDENTS:

RW.1:V.Shankardasi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

1.Ex.A1: FIR 2.Ex.A2:Charge sheet 3.Ex.A3:Inquest Report 4.Ex.A4:Post Mortem Examination 5.Ex.A5:Scene of offence report 6.Ex.A6:Letter 7.Ex.A7:Registered Post Cover 8.Ex.A8:acknowledgment 9.Ex.A9:School Certificate 10.Ex.A10 :Intermediate Certificate 11.Ex.A11 :'Marks Memo 12.Ex.A12 :B.Tech Certificate

FOR RESPONDENTS :

Ex.B1:Policy.

FAC IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

CUM XVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN

SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD:

PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A.B.L., FAC/ XXI Addl.Chief Judge-Cum-VII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Hyderabad.

Dated this the 9th day of February, 2012.

ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 2147 of 2007

Between: Bhoyini Praveen Kumar @ Praveen S/o. Narsimulu, aged 22 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2-2-185/55/E,

Amberpet, Hyderabad. ...... Petitioner.

And

1 D. Ravinder S/o. Not known, aged major, r/o. H.No.5-56, Rudraram village, Patencheru Mandal, Medak Dt-502329.

2 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance company limited, Rep by its Branch Manager, 4th Floor, Zawal Pavani Towers, Raj Bhavan road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82. Head office: Sundaram towers, 45 and 46 Whites Road, Chennai. (vide policy no. VP00041110000103 valid from

10-7-2005 to 9-7-2006) .... Respondents.

This petition coming before me on 30-1-2012 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Rajender Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for R-1 Sri R. Anjireddy and Counsel for R-2 Sri K. Laxmi Prasad Rao, and having stood over for consideration this day, this Court made the following:- : A W A R D :

The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

The petitioner was injured in a motor accident on 2-7-2006, due to the negligent driving of the vehicle AP-23-E-8883, by its driver. The vehicle belonged to R1 and was insured with

R2. The petitioner was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month in business.

On that day, at about 11-30 a.m the petitioner and others were proceeding in the car of first respondent. Near Shabash pally village, the driver of the car drove it in a negligent manner and dashed a dog. Due to which the car over turned on the road causing injuries to inmates. The petitioner took treatment in Gandhi hospital and Sigma hospital spending huge amounts. The petitioner sustained fracture injuries which required surgery. The driver of R1 was prosecuted in a criminal case. Hence the petition claiming compensation of six lakh rupees from the respondents.

2. The brief averments of the counter of R1 are as follows.

The averments of the petition are not correct. The accident has not occurred as 2 mentioned in the petition. The driver of the vehicle was not negligent in causing the accident.

The claimant suppressed the material facts and filed this petition. The petitioners and others were travelling in the car of first respondent, at the time of the accident. The petitioner got registered a false case against the driver of car by using his influence to claim the compensation.

The petitioner is not having monthly income as alleged. The claim is excessive. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

3 The brief averments of the written statement of of R2 are as follows:

The averments of the petition are not correct. The accident has not occurred as mentioned in the petition. The driver of the vehicle was not negligent in causing the accident.

The driver of the vehicle is not negligent in causing the accident. The vehicle was not insured with this respondent. The first respondent is not a necessary party to the claim. Hence, the claim against second respondent is untenable. The petition is filed to gain unlawfully. The driver of the vehicle violated the conditions. This court has no jurisdiction. The claim is excessive. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

4.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1 Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registered no. AP-23-E- 8883, by its driver?

2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, from whom?

3 To what relief?

5On behalf of the petitioner Pws 1 to 5 were examined and Ex.A.1 to A.22 were marked.

RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to B7 were marked on behalf of the respondent.

6. Issue no.1: On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 to PW3 were examined. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner deposed as PW1. In his evidence, he deposed to the travel in the vehicle of first respondent, to the accident, to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, to the treatment received by him and to the other facts of the case. No evidence was adduced by the respondents regarding the manner of the accident. The petitioner was travelling in the car of the first respondent along with others. The car was alleged to have hit a dog on the road and turned turtle, due to the impact. Thus, the accident was not due to the interference of other vehicle. A driver of a vehicle dashing a animal on the road and due to which the vehicle driven by him over turning, can only be due to his negligence. Unless, the driver of first respondent was negligent, an accident of this nature will not occur. Hence, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, I have no hesitation to hold that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the first respondent. Hence, this issue is held accordingly.

7 Issue No.2: The first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. The second respondent denied the insurance coverage to the vehicle of first respondent. However, no material is filed to establish the same. The first respondent claimed that the vehicle was insured with the second respondent in para-8 of the counter. As such, the 3 second respondent has to establish the said fact to the satisfaction of the court. In the absence of the same, the plea of the second respondent cannot be accepted. Hence, I hold that respondents 1 and 2 are liable to the claim jointly and severally.

8The petitioner claimed a compensation of six lakh rupees. The petitioner contended that he suffered grievous injuries. PW2 and PW3 deposed to the nature of the injuries, to the treatment given to him and to the expenses incurred for the same. PW2 deposed that the petitioner may have to incur some more expenditure for the removal of implants which were inserted during surgery. The petitioner filed medical records showing an expenditure nearly Rs.

1,54,000/- . The medical expenses are rounded off to Rs. 1,25,000/-. The evidence is that the petitioner suffered fracture injuries including loss of teeth. To the fracture injuriesm a compensation of Rs. 70,000/- is granted. To the fracture of mandible including loss of teeth, a compensation of Rs. 70,000/- is granted. To the pain and suffering, a compensation of Rs.

15,000/- can be granted. To the loss of income for two months, a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is added. A compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is granted to future medication, in a notional manner.

The petitioner is thus found entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 3,20,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition, till realisation along with an advocate fee of Rs. 2,000/-, against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed in part directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 3,20,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition, till realisation along with an Advocate fee of Rs. 2,000/-, against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The rest of the petition claim is dismissed without costs. The petitioner is entitled to receive the entire amount.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court this the 9th day of February, 2012.

FAC/ VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE CUM

XXI ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, HYDERABAD.

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR PETITIONER

P.W.1 : B. Praveen Kumar P.W.2 : Dr. B. Ravibabu P.W.3 : Dr. Balasubramanyam

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENT

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of the FIR Ex.A2 : Certified copy of the charge sheet Ex.A3 : Certified copy of scene of offence panchanama Ex.A4 : Certified copy of MLC issued by Gandhi hospital. Ex.A5 : Discharge summaries of Sigma hospital Ex.A6 : Prescriptions.

4

Ex.A7 : Prescriptions. Ex.A8 : Hospital and pharmacy bills Ex.A9 : X-ray films.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT : -NIL-

FAC/ XXI ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE -CUM-VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE: HYD.

1

IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE­CUM­VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN

SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD:

PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A.B.L., FAC XXI Addl.Chief Judge­Cum­VII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Hyderabad. 

Dated this the 4th day of May,2012

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.1544 of 2007

Between: G.Surender S/o.late.G.Venkatesham, Age:25yrs Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.21­63, Near Old Majid, Kalwakurty(P), Mahaboobnagar District, A.P. Presently R/o.11­13­270/A, Road No.9, Plot No.9,

Alkapuri Colony, R.R.Distrcit. ...... Petitioner.

And

1.Mrs.A.Shanthamma W/o.Krishnaiah, Age:Major Occ:Owner of the crime vehicle R/o.Venkatapur village H.No.1­89, Kalwakurthy Mandal, Mahaboobnagar,AP 2.Bajaj Allienz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep., by its Divisional Manager, II nd floor, “Foreast Plaza”, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad. 

(vide policy no. 0G­07­1801­1803­00031490 valid from

6­12­2006 to 5­12­2007 midnight) .... Respondents. 

This petition coming before me on 16­4­2012 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Bhoopal Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for R­2 Sri.Papa Reddy, and having stood over for consideration this day, this Court made the following:­  : A W A R D :

The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

The petitioner was injured in a motor accident on 19.5.2007, due to the negligent driving of the vehicle AP­22V­9755, by its driver. The vehicle belonged to R1 and was insured with 

R2. The petitioner was aged about 25 years and was drawing a monthly income of Rs.10,000/­ through self employment, on the date of the accident. On the date of the accident, the petitioner and his friend were travelling on a motorcycle from Tharnikal village to Kalwakurthy. Near 

Sanjapur gate, the vehicle of R1 driven in a negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle, on which 2 the petitioner was travelling. The petitioner and his friend received serious injuries. The petitioner took treatment in Government hospital, Kalwakurthy, and in Yashoda hospital, 

Hyderabad. The petitioner was unable to work and earn, due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Hence, the petition claiming compensation of five lakh rupees.

2. R1 remained exparte.

3.The brief averments of the written statement of R2 are as follows.

The averments of the petition are not correct. The age, avocation and income of the injured are denied. The manner of the accident is denied. The accident was not due to the negligent driving of the vehicle of R1, as alleged. The claim is high and excessive. The driver of the motorcycle on which the petitioner was travelling contributed to the accident. He was driving the vehicle without observing the traffic rules. The respondent is entitled to take defence under 170 of the M.V.Act. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

4.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident on 19­5­2007, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of auto bearing no.AP­22V­9755?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, from whom?

3. To what relief?

5.On behalf of the petitioner, Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. 

RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked on behalf of the respondent.

6.  Issue no.1: The petitioner was the injured in the accident. He deposed to the accident, to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, to the treatment received by him and to the facts of the case, as PW1. He denied that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the motorcycle, by his friend. The motorcycle on which PW1 was travelling and the vehicle of R1, were coming in the opposite direction, at the time of the accident. RW1 deposed to the defence taken by R2. 

He did not speak to the manner of the accident. The vehicle of R1 dashed the motorcycle, on which the petitioner was travelling. The petitioner is relying upon the records of the criminal case, in addition to the oral evidence let in by him. In Ex.A1, the certified copy of the first information report, the accident was reported to have occurred, as claimed by the petitioner. The charge sheet for negligent driving was filed against the driver of R1. Hence, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, I have no hesitation to hold that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the vehicle, by the driver of R1. The contribution of the petitioner if any, shall be dealt 3 with in issue no.2. This issue is held accordingly. 

7.Issue No.2: By virtue of the finding on issue no.1, R1 is liable to the claim. R2 a insurer of R1 is also liable to the claim. Ex.A3 is the wound certificate of the petitioner. The doctor noted a swelling on the right hand and deformity on the right thigh and right leg. The second injury was opined grievous and the injury to the right hand was opined simple. PW2 is the doctor, who treated the petitioner. He deposed to the treatment underwent by the petitioner. The petitioner filed medical bills worth Rs.1,25,807/­. Since the injury to the right leg was opined grievous, the medical expenditure might be high. The same might have put the petitioner out of action for some time. To the fracture injury, a compensation of Rs.50,000/­ is granted. To the simple injury to the right hand, a compensation of Rs.5,000/­ is granted. The medical expenditure is rounded off to 

Rs.1,10,000/­. Another amount of Rs.10,000/­ can be granted towards pain and suffering. The petitioner might have been out of work for one month. Therefore, Rs.5,000/­ can be granted towards loss of earning for one month. The compensation payable comes to Rs.1,80,000/­.

8.The respondent contended that the driver was licenced to drive a light motor vehicle only. 

The auto of R1 was reported to have caused the accident. An auto is a light motor vehicle. 

Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the respondent that the vehicle of R1 was driven by a person without valid driving licence. As such, R2 is liable to the claim. From the evidence, it cannot be held that the driver of the motorcycle, on which the injured was travelling at the time of the accident, contributed to the accident. As such, the compensation payable need not be reduced towards the contributory negligence. The petitioner is therefore found entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,80,000/­. The petitioner is entitled to the same with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition, till realisation along with an advocate fee of Rs.2,000/­. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to the same. This issue is held accordingly. 

9.In the result, the petition is allowed, granting a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/­ with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till realisation along with an advocate fee of Rs.2,000/­ against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. 

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by 

me in the open Court this the 4th day of May,2012.

FAC VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE CUM

XXI ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, HYDERABAD. 

4 :: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR PETITIONER

P.W.1 : G.Surender P.W.2 : Dr.Anil Kumar

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENT

R.W.1 : Amtul Baseer Quadri

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER 

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of the FIR Ex.A2 : Certified copy of the charge sheet Ex.A3 : Certified copy requisition for examination of wound person Ex.A4 : Bunch of medical bills. Ex.A5 : Hospital final bill Ex.A6 : Discharge record Ex.A7 : Second admission final bill Ex.A8 : Second admission discharge record. 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT

Ex.B1 : Authorisation letter Ex.B2 : Copy of policy Ex.P3 : Abstract of driving licence of R.Ashok. Ex.P4 : Xerox copy of R.C.

FAC XXI ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE ­CUM­VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE: HYD. 

 1

IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,: AT HYDERABAD.

Present: Sri P.V.Krishnamurthy, B.A.,B.L., FAC IV Addl Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 11th day of April, 2012

O.P.661/2009 Between:

1)K.Rugli, W/o.K.Lobya, aged 40 years, occ:Household,R/o.H.No.1-78, Madanapally village, Shamsabad Mandal, R.R.District.

2)K.Lobya, S/o.K.Ramulu, aged 45 years, occ:Agriculture,R/o.H.No.1-78, Madanapally village, Shamsabad Mandal, R.R.District.

..Petitioners

A N D

1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Banganpally Depot, Guntur District.

2.The Managing Director, APSRTC, Administrative Building, Bus Bhavan, R.T.C. Xroads, Hyderabad.. .…Respondents

This petition is filed u/s.163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, praying that for the reasons stated therein to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 18% and with costs from the date of the petition and till the date of realization.

This petition coming on for hearing before me upon perusing the records and hearing the arguments of Sri M.Lingam, Advocate for petitioners and Sri M.Pratap Reddy, Advocate for the respondents, this Court made the following:- -:( A W A R D ):-

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

The petitioners are the parents of Dhannu Singh, who died in the motor accident on 16.3.2009, near Madanapalli dargah, due to the negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Number.AP11Z 4191. The vehicle belonged to 2 the respondents. The deceased was aged 18 years, and was earning

Rs.4,000/- per month as a worker. On that day, the deceased was crossing the road. The bus of the respondents driven in a negligent manner by its driver, came on the wrong side and dashed the deceased causing severe injuries. The deceased was taken to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment. He died while receiving treatment on the same day at about 10-00 PM. The driver of the bus was prosecuted in a criminal case.

Petitioners lost much, on account of his untimely death. Hence the petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- .

2.The brief averments of the counter of respondents 1 and 2 are as follows:

The averments of the petition are not correct. The accident has not occurred as mentioned in the petition. The age, avocation and income of the deceased are denied. The driver of the bus of the respondents was not at fault in causing the accident. The claim is high and excessive. The driver of the bus of the respondents has not caused the accident. Hence petition may be dismissed.

3.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed while dictating the award. They were not framed earlier. Framing of the issues at this stage will not inconvenience the parties, since they adduced evidence as per their pleadings. Framing of issues is only an formal act.

1)Whether the deceased died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus bearing No.AP11Z 4191?

2)Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so to what is the quantum of amount to which the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled?

3)To what relief?

 3

4.On behalf of the petitioners, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and

Ex.A1 to A10 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

5.Issue No.1:

The petitioners are the parents of the deceased. PW1 is the 2nd petitioner and father of the deceased. He spoke to the accident, to the death of his son in the accident. However, he did not witness the accident.

PW.2 deposed to the manner of the accident. PW.2 is the brother of the deceased. PW.2 and the deceased were crossing the road when the bus of the respondents dashed the deceased. No rebuttal evidence was adduced, with regard to the manner of the accident. In addition, the petitioners are relying upon the records of the criminal case. In Ex.A1, the certified copy of the first information report, the accident was reported to have occurred as claimed in the petition. The charge sheet under Ex.A3, shows that the driver of the respondent was prosecuted u/s.304-A IPC. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the evidence of PW.2 with regard to the accident, cannot be disbelieved. The driver of the bus will have a clear view of the persons moving on the road. That the driver of the bus dashed the person crossing the road, shows his negligence. As such, I hold that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the bus by its driver. As such, respondents are liable to the claim. This issue is held accordingly.

6.Issue No.2 :

The deceased was aged 18 years. However, there is no evidence with rega rd to the age, avocation and monthly income of the deceased. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. Naturally, they might have suffered due to the untimely death of their son in the accident. In the 4 absence of any material, the income of the deceased has to be calculated in a notional manner. Considering eh death of the deceased, at an early age, I am of the view that a compensation of rs.3,00,000/- is sufficient to the parents. Out of the above amount, the 1st petitioner is granted Rs.2,00,000/- and the 2nd petitioner is granted Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioners are entitled to the above compensation with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5 % p.a from the date of the petition, till realization, along with an advocate fee of

Rs.2,500/- against the respondents jointly and severally. Petitioners can withdraw the amount soon after the deposit.

7.Issue No.3:

In the result, petitioners are awarded a compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/-. Out of the above amount the 1st petitioner is granted

Rs.2,00,000/- and the 2nd petitioner is granted Rs.1,00,000/-. Petitioners are entitled to the above compensation with proportionate costs and interest @7.5 % p.a from the date of the petition, till realization, along with an advocate fee of Rs.2,500/- against the respondents jointly and severally.

Petitioners can withdraw the amount soon after the deposit.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of April,, 2012.

FAC IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

CUM XVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:

PW.1 :K.Lobiya PW.2 : K.Ranjit Singh

FOR RESPONDENTS: NIL

 5

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

1.Ex.A1: FIR 2.Ex.A1/A:Copy of Complainant 3.Ex.A2:Inquest Report 4.Ex.A3:copy of Charge sheet 5.Ex.A4:Post Mortem Examination requisition 6.Ex.A5:Post Mortem Examination report 7.Ex.A6:MVI Report 8.Ex.A7:Scene of offence panchanama 9.Ex.A8:Rough sketch 10.Ex.A9:Case Diary part.II 11.Ex.A10 :Age certificate of Rupla

FOR RESPONDENTS : NIL

FAC IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

CUM XVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

 6 11.4.2012: Award pronounced (VSO) Intheresult, petitioners are awarded a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Out of the above amount the 1st petitionerisgranted Rs.2,00,000/- and the 2nd petitionerisgranted Rs.1,00,000/-. Petitioners are entitledtotheabove compensationwith proportionate costs and interest @7.5 % p.a from the date of the petition, till realization, along with an advocate fee of Rs.2,500/-. Petitioners can withdraw the amount soon after the deposit.

FAC.IVAMSJ

CUM XVIII ACJ