BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: CUM:
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT ADILABAD
FRIDAY, DATED THIS THE 24 th DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT: SMT. R. DANIE RUTH, Chairman, MACT-cum-III Addl. District Judge,
ADILABAD.
MVOP No.29 of 2023
Between:
1. Alam Tulsa Bai, W/o. Alam Shankari, Age: 35 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Native Agarguda, Penchakalpet village, Presently residing at H.No.2-71/2, Ramnagar, Adilabad.
2. Thorram Gopal, S/o. Late Siddaiah, Age: 43 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Native of Papanpet village, Mandal Bejjur, Presently residing at Ramnagar, Adilabad.
3. Thorram Sambaiah, S/o. Late. Siddaiah, Age: 41 years, Occ: Labour, R/o.Native of Papanpet village, Mandal: Bejjur, Presently residing at Ramnagar, Adilabad.
4. Thorram Shankar, S/o. Late. Siddaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Native of Papanpet village, Mandal Bejjur, Presently residing at Ramnagar, Adilabad.
…..Petitioners
And
1. Routhu Kiran, S/o. Venkati, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture-cum-Rider of motorcycle bearing No.TS- 20-B-8890, R/o.Papanpet village, Mandal Bejjur, District Kumrambheem/Asifabad.
2. Routhu Pushpala, W/o. Venkati, Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Crime Vehicle Motorcycle bearing No.TS-20- B-8890, R/o. Papanpet village, Mandal Bejjur, District Kumrambheem.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yearwad, Pune – 411006. Vide Policy No.OG-21-1810-1826-0002695 Valid from 28-07-2020 to 27-07-2025. …Respondents ** 2 ** MVOP.NO.29 OF 2023
DT: 24.04.2026
This petition coming on 15.04.2026 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri T.Roshi Reddy, Advocate for Petitioners and that of Sri. C.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for respondent no.3, Respondent no.1 and 2 remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:
:: O R D E R ::
1.This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 166 (1) (c) of Motor
Vehicles Act claiming compensation to a tune of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) for the death of Torram Mondakka in a fatal accident together with subsequent interest @ 18% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and costs.
2.The averments in the petition in nutshell are, as follows:
(I) On 06.01.2023 while the deceased Torram Mondakka as pillion rider and
Respondent No.1 as rider were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.TS-20-B-8890 to the house of deceased situated at Parapet/Papanpet village and on the way when they reached near Church on Kacha Road, Parapet/Papanpet village of Bejjur Mandal at about 16.00 hours, all of sudden the respondent no.1 rode the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which the crime vehicle turned turtle and deceased fell down from the crime vehicle and sustained grievous head injury and injuries over her body and immediately the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Sirpur-T where the duty doctor examined the deceased and declared as brought dead.
(ii) The Police of P.S. Bejjur have registered a case in Crime No.2/2023 under
Section 304-A IPC against the respondent no.1/rider of motorcycle bearing No.TS-20-B- 8890.
(iii) The deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident. The deceased was aged about 60 years. The deceased was a vegetable vendor and used to earn Rs.20,000/- ** 3 ** MVOP.NO.29 OF 2023
DT: 24.04.2026
per month and used to spend her earnings on the maintenance of petitioners. She used to contribute his earning for the welfare of the family and well being of the family members and there is a scope of enhancement of her income to the deceased if she is alive. The petitioner No.1 is the daughter, the petitioner No.2 to 4 are sons of the deceased. As the deceased died at an early age, and due to sudden and unexpected death, the family was totally deprived of future earnings, lost love and affection and the petitioners are suffering from mental agony and financially suffering as they were depending on the income of the deceased.
(iv) The respondent No.1 is the rider of motorcycle bearing No.TS-20-B-8890, respondent No.2 is the owner of motorcycle bearing No.TS-20-B-8890 and respondent
No.3 is the insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.TS-20-B-8890 and as such they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the claim petition.
3.On receipt of notice, the respondent no.1 and 2 did not chose to appear before the tribunal as such the respondent no.2 was set exparte on 04.08.2023 and respondent no.1 was set exparte on 03.04.2024.
4.Respondent No.3 has appeared through his counsel and filed counter. He denied that the manner of the accident as narrated in the petition. It is denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. The rider of the crime vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing No.TS-20-
B-8890 was not having valid and effective driving license and violated the rules and regulations of Motor Vehicles Act and the respondent no.2 who is the owner of crime vehicle has handed over the crime vehicle to the respondent no.1 who is unauthorized to ride the crime vehicle as such they contravened the proviso of the Motor Vehicles Act,thus the Police have filed charge sheet under Section 304(A) IPC and section 180 and 181 MV ** 4 ** MVOP.NO.29 OF 2023
DT: 24.04.2026
Act against the respondent no.1 and 2. Further stated that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. This respondent company denied that the crime vehicle was insured at the time of accident. The respondent no.1 and 2 failed to furnish the details of policy and date, and the accident details as contemplated under section 134 (C) of MV Act and thereby he contravened the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also the concerned police failed to forward the relevant documents to the respondent as contemplated under section 158 (6) of M.V. Act, and as such the respondent no.3 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. This respondent no.3 seeks protection under
Section 147 and 149 of M.V. Act. Hence, prayed to dismiss petition against the respondent no.3 with costs.
5.Basing on the pleadings of both sides the following issues have been framed for trial:
1. Whether accident occurred on 06.01.2023 at about 16.00 hours near
Church on Kacha Road, Parapet/Papanpet village of Bejjur
Mandal, due to rash and negligent riding of Motorcycle bearing
Registration No.TS-20-B-8890 by respondent no.1?
2. Whether Thorram Mondakka received injuries in the said accident and died due to injuries?
3. Whether respondent no.1 was holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, to
what amount and from which respondent/respondents?
5. To what relief?
6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent no.3, RW1 and
RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were exhibited.
7.Heard arguments on both sides.
** 5 ** MVOP.NO.29 OF 2023
DT: 24.04.2026
ISSUE No.1 and 2 :
8.In the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act the finding of negligence has to be recorded on preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, both petitioners and respondents must lead appropriate evidence in support of their claim. The general purport of the word “res ipsa loquitor” is that the accident “speaks for itself” or “tells its own story”. The right of the victim in a road accident to claim compensation is a statutory one.
9.On behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner no.1 has filed an affidavit in lieu of her chief examination as contemplated under Order-XVIII, Rule-4 (1) of C.P.C. Her evidence is nothing but replica of petition pleadings.
10.Admittedly, PW1 who is none other than daughter of the deceased is not the eyewitness to the occurrence. She deposes that on 6.01.2023 while the deceased by name
Thorram Mondakka along with respondent no.1 were proceeding to their house on a motorcycle bearing No.TS-20-B-8890 and when they reached near Church on Kacha
Road, Parapet/Papanpet village of Bejjur Mandal at about 16.00 hours and in the meantime the crime vehicle motorcycle bearing No.TS-20-B-8890 being rode by it’s rider i.e., respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which the crime vehicle turned turtle and deceased fell down from the crime vehicle and sustained grievous head injury and injuries over the body and immediately the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Sirpur-T where the duty doctor examined the deceased and declared as brought dead.
11.PW1 categorically stated that the accident was occurred due to negligent act of rider of crime vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing No.TS-20-B-8890. She admitted that she has not filed any document to show that her deceased mother used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month.
** 6 ** MVOP.NO.29 OF 2023
DT: 24.04.2026
Further she stated that all the petitioners are married prior to the death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 06.01.2023. She denied the suggestion that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Except hurling suggestions nothing important was elicited during the cross examination of witness. Further, this Tribunal finds no reasons to disbelieve the testimony of P.W-1.
12.In Bimla Devi & Others V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others,
Kaushnumma Begum and Others V/s New India Assurance Company Limited and in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pushpa Rana, it has been held that: “the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable”. In Sunitha and others V. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “it is settled that in motor vehicle accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, the Tribunal’s role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation, if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of motor vehicle and while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by pleadings of the parties”.
13.It is pertinent to see that the petitioners have filed attested copy of First Information
Report with complaint (Ex.A-1), Charge Sheet (Ex.A-7), Post Mortem Examination
Report (Ex.A-3) and inquest Panchanama of Torram Mondakka (Ex.A-2).
14.It is not in dispute that the Police Bejjur have registered the case in crime No.2/2023 under Sections 304-A of IPC and after completion of investigation, the Investigating ** 7 ** MVOP.NO.29 OF 2023
DT: 24.04.2026
Officer filed charge sheet (Ex.A-7) for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and
Section 180, 181 of MV Act, against rider of crime vehicle/respondent No.1.
15.The petitioners also got examined PW2 who is the eye witness to the accident. PW2 categorically stated that due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the crime vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing No.TS-20-B-8890 the accident had occurred, as a result the deceased sustained injuries and died. Nothing important was elicited during the cross examination of PW2 except hurling suggestions that she has not witnessed the accident on that day and there was no negligence on part of the rider of crime vehicle.
16.On scanning the material on record and in view of the citations referred supra, this
Tribunal holds that the petitioners have established that the death of deceased Thorram
Mondakka, was on account of rash and negligent act on the part of the rider of the crime vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing No.TS-20-B-8890. Accordingly, issues 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.3:
17.As per the charge sheet (Ex.A7) the case was filed against the respondent no.1 and 2 for the offence under Sections 304-A of IPC and section 180, 181 of MV Act. It is revealed in the charge sheet that the respondent no.1 was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident and respondent no.2 has given the crime vehicle to unauthorized person i.e., respondent no.1 to ride the crime vehicle who does not possess valid driving license.
18.The respondent no.3 got examined RW1 who is the Assistant Manager-Claims
Legal in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. RW1 categorically stated that ** 8 ** MVOP.NO.29 OF 2023
DT: 24.04.2026
the rider of crime vehicle has not valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident and the Police concerned have filed charge sheet under sections 180 and 181 of
MV Act against the rider and owner of crime vehicle for violation of rules and regulations of Motor Vehicles Act. Though the respondent no.3 sent registered letters to the rider and owner of crime vehicle for production of driving license of rider but they have ignored the same and not produced any driving license.
19.The respondent no.3 also got examined RW2 who is the Administrative Officer,
RTO Office, Kumrambheem. RW2 categorically stated that as per their office record there is no license details found in the department data on the name of Rauth Kiran S/o. Venkati i.e., rider of crime vehicle/respondent no.1.
20.The respondent No.3 who pleaded that rider of crime vehicle did not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident. In this regard oral or documentary evidence is putforth by respondent No.3 to substantiate the same and in such event it can be considered and the same deserves appreciation of this court. The respondent No.3 established that rider of crime vehicle did not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident. In view of above circumstances this issue no.3 settled in favour of petitioners.
ISSUE No.4:
21.Petitioner No.1 is the daughter, the petitioner No.2 to 4 are sons of the deceased.
They are claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) along with future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization, with costs under all heads.
22.Age, Avocation and Income of the deceased: According to the petitioners, the ** 9 ** MVOP.NO.29 OF 2023
DT: 24.04.2026
deceased was aged about 60 years and she was a vegetable vendor and was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month and that she used to contribute her earnings for the welfare of family. Due to the sudden death of deceased the petitioner no.1 to 4 who are the daughter and sons of the deceased lost love, affection and care. The petitioners have not filed any age proof certificate, but as can be seen from the postmortem report/Ex.A3 the age of deceased mentioned as 65 years. Therefore, the age of the deceased was considered as 65 years as on the date of her death, for the purpose of fixing the compensation.
23.According to the petitioners the deceased was a vegetable vendor and earning
Rs.20,000/- per month but there is no evidence or document on behalf of petitioners to establish the income of the deceased. However, taking into consideration the material on record and valuable services of the deceased towards her family and present days minimum wages, this Tribunal is of the view that it is just and proper to consider the earning of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- per annum from all sources, for the purpose of fixing the compensation.
24.Calculation for loss of Dependency and Future Prospects:According to the petitioners the deceased used to contribute her earnings for the welfare of the family. Due to the death of the deceased there is no one to serve their family and petitioner no.1 to 4 lost love and affection of their mother. On applying the principles laid down in case of
Sarala Verma V. DTC and National Insurance Company Ltd., V. Pranay Sethi and
others, since the deceased was aged about 65 years, no future prospects of income can be awarded.
25.Since the petitioners No.1 to 4 are dependents of deceased, 1/4th of income has to be deducted towards personal expenses and by applying the appropriate multiplier (7) ** 10 ** MVOP.NO.29 OF 2023
DT: 24.04.2026
taking into consideration the age of the deceased at the time of her death as per Sarala
Verma and Pranay Sethi cases (supra), the total loss of dependency comes to
Rs.1,20,000/- [Rs.1,20,000/- (-) Rs.30,000/- (1/4 personal expenses) = Rs.90,000/- x 7].
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to claim Rs.6,30,000/- under the head of loss of dependency and future prospects.
26.Compensation for loss of Estate : As per the principles laid down in case of
Kalpanaraj and others V. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, reported in 2014 (5)
Scale 479 and National Insurance Company Ltd., V. Pranay Sethi and others (referred supra), the petitioners are entitled for Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate.
27.Claim pertaining to the funeral expenses: As per the principles laid down in
Rajesh and Others V. Rajbir Singh and others and National Insurance Company Ltd.,
V. Pranay Sethi and others (referred supra), the petitioners are entitled for Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses.
28.The petitioners are entitled for total compensation as under:
1.Loss of DependencyRs.6,30,000-00
2.Loss of EstateRs.16,500-00
3.Funeral ExpensesRs.16,500-00 TotalRs. 6,63,000-00
29.The claim petitioners are entitled to claim a total compensation of Rs.6,63,000/-.
30.Apportionment:
Sl.No.To whomAmount
1.Petitioner No.1Rs.1,65,750/-
2.Petitioner No.2Rs.1,65,750/- ** 11 ** MVOP.NO.29 OF 2023
DT: 24.04.2026
3.Petitioner No.3Rs.1,65,750/-
4.Petitioner No.4Rs.1,65,750/- Total:Rs.6,63,000/-
31.Liability:Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company
Limited through its Divisional Manager Vs. Sujata Arora & Ors 2013 (3) T.A.C. 29 (S.C.) and has submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has categorically held that “if the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess valid driving license, liability for payment of compensation cannot be fastened on the insurer.”
32.As per the cases in Anu Bhanvara and Others vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance
Company Limited and Others reported in (2020) 20 SCC 632; Sunita & Ors. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. as well as in the case of Rama Bai vs. M/s. Amit
Minerals reported in 2025 INSC 1162, it was held that “the insurance company is entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle by filing appropriate proceeding.”
33.The respondent no.3 examined RW1 and got marked Ex.B5 to prove that the rider of crime vehicle is not having valid driving license. It is settled law that when there is a violation of terms and conditions of policy the liability cannot be fastened on insurance company however basing on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and recent judgment in K. Nagendra vs. New India Insurance Company Limited it was observed that "embodies judicial empathy ensuring victims are not left uncompensated due to dispute between owner and insurer. At the same time, considering the contractual accountability, owner who breaches the condition of insurance policy cannot escape financial responsibility as insurers retain the right to recover paid sum to claimant. The dual balance of justice for victim and fairness for insurers strengthens integrity of Motor ** 12 ** MVOP.NO.29 OF 2023
DT: 24.04.2026
Vehicles Accident Compensation system”. In view of the above citations this court is inclined that it is just and proper to order the insurance company to pay the awarded amount first and to recover the same from the owner later.
34.According to the petitioners, the respondent no.1 is the rider, respondent no.2 is the owner and respondent no.3 is the insurer of crime vehicle. The respondent no.3 examined
RW1 on their behalf and filed the copy of Insurance policy bearing No.OG-21-1810-1826- 00002695 and marked as Ex.B1. As can be seen from the policy copy that was issued for motorcycle vide Engine No.DHXCLM78178 and Chassis No. MD2A11CX6LCM55402 and the same is valid from 28.07.2020 to midnight 27.07.2025. Admittedly accident occurred on 06.01.2023. Hence the crime vehicle was covered with insurance with the respondent no.3 company as on the date and time of accident. Accordingly this point is answered. Hence the policy was in force.
35.Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has argued that the respondent no.1 was not holding valid driving license to ride the crime vehicle as on date and time of the accident and thus the respondent no.1 violated the terms and conditions of the insurance in between the respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 as such, the respondent no.3 is not liable to indemnify the respondent no.2 and hence prayed to dismiss the claim of the petitioners against the respondent no.3. The burden to prove that the respondent no.1 was not having valid and effective driving license to ride the crime vehicle at the material point of time is on the respondent no.3 and not on the petitioners as per the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 between National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others. As per Ex.A7 - charge sheet and as per the evidence of RW2 who is Administrative Officer, RTO Office, Kumrambheem,
Asifabad, it establishes that the respondent no.1 was not having valid and effective driving ** 13 ** MVOP.NO.29 OF 2023
DT: 24.04.2026
license to ride the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is clear that the respondent No.1 is not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and hence, violated the conditions of the policy. Therefore, the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, as the crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 and the policy is in force as on the date of accident, court has to apply the principle of ‘pay and recovery’ in this case, as laid down in the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pappu and others V/s. Vinod Kumar
Lamba and another in CA.No.20962 of 2017, decided on 19.01.2018 reported in 2018 (2) ALD 49 (SC) , wherein it was held that “in case of violation of conditions of insurance policy, insurance company must pay the awarded compensation amount first and then recover the same from the driver and owner of crime vehicle.” Hence, the respondent no.3 has to first deposit the awarded compensation amount in court and then recover the same from respondent nos.1 and 2. Hence this Tribunal holds that the respondents no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
36.Rate of interest: The petitioners are claiming interest @ 18% per annum. As per the principles laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in New India Assurance Company
Limited–Appellant V. Charlie and another, reported in 2005 ACJ 1131, this Tribunal award an interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent nos.1 and 2.
ISSUE No.5:
37.In view of findings and conclusions on the above issues, this Tribunal holds that the petitioners are entitled for compensation against respondent no.1 and 2. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
** 14 ** MVOP.NO.29 OF 2023
DT: 24.04.2026
IN THE RESULT: The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part by awarding total compensation of an amount of Rs.6,63,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty
Three Thousand Only) with proportionate costs against the respondent No.1 and 2 and they are jointly and severally liable to pay with subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount;
However, respondent No.3, being the insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the awarded amount with costs and interest in Court within ONE month from the date of this order first and later recover the same from respondent no.1 and 2 by initiating proceedings before executing court to protect and safeguard the interest of respondent
No.3.
On deposit of awarded amount by respondent no.3, the petitioner no.1 to 4 being daughter and sons of the deceased are awarded an amount of Rs.1,65,750/- each with costs and interest and the petitioner no.1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw their entire amount awarded to them along with costs and interest.
The rest of the claim is dismissed without costs.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24 th day of April, 2026.
CHAIRMAN,
MACT - CUM - III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
ADILABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONERS
PW1 : Alam Tulsa Bai PW2 : Sidam Padma ** 15 ** MVOP.NO.29 OF 2023
DT: 24.04.2026
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS
RW1 : A. Karthik RW2 : Jadhav Aruna Bai
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS
Attested copy of F.I.R with complaint in Crime No.2/2023 PS Bejjur Ex.A1 : U/Sec.304-A IPC. Attested copy of Inquest over the dead body of the deceased Torram Ex.A2 : Mondakka. Attested copy of Report of Postmortem Examination of deceased Torram Ex.A3 : Mondakka. Attested copy of Insurance policy of crime vehicle. Ex.A4 : Xerox copy of Certificate of Registration of Crime Vehicle Motorcycle Ex.A5 : bearing No.TS-20-B-8890. Attested copy of Crime Detail Form along with rough sketch Crime Ex.A6 : No.2/2023 PS Bejjur U/Sec.304(A) IPC Attested copy of Charge sheet in Crime No.2/2023 PS Bejjur U/Sec.304-A Ex.A7 : IPC
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS
Ex.B1 :Attested copy of insurance policy of motorcycle bearing No.TS-20-B-8890 with terms and conditions. Ex.B2 :Copy of letter dated 20.07.2023 issued to Respondent No.1 along with Postal receipt vide No.RN151406056IN. Ex.B3 :Copy of letter dated 20.07.2023 issued to Respondent No.2 along with Postal receipt vide No.RN151405824IN. Ex.B4 :Authorization letter in the name of Smt. J.Aruna Bai, Administrative Officer, office of the District Transport, Komarambheem, Asifabad to depose in MVOP.29/2023. Ex.B5 :Letter issued by District Transport Office, Komarambheem, Asfiabad dated 02.07.2025 stating that on search of data base in the name of Routh Kiran S/o. Venkati no license details found in the department data base and enclosed license search record, dated 02.07.2025.
CHAIRMAN,
MACT - CUM - III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
ADILABAD