Sri R.Murali

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool

PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool · Kurnool · Andhra Pradesh

Sri R.Murali, Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, is posted at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India. 155 court orders on record since 2015. 2 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CRLMP, T, MVOP cases.

155

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

MVOP/614/2011

Kummari Mallikarjuna vs Vadla Mallikarjuna Achari and another

28 Sep 2015

BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL, KURNOOL

PRESENT: Sri R.Murali, Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool -cum- Principal District Judge, Kurnool.

Monday, the 28th day of September 2015.

M.V.O.P. No.614 of 2011

K.Mallikarjuna .. Petitioner

-Versus-

1. V.Mallikarjuna Achari

2. M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance .. Respondents

Co. Ltd., rep. by its Manager, Pune

This petition coming on 23-09-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and

Sri Palle Niranjan Kumar, Advocate for the second respondent and the first respondent having remained ex parte; upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 166 (1)

(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying the Court to grant compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident and for interest and costs.

2. The averments in the petition, in brief, are as follows:-

a) The petitioner was aged 32 years and he was doing business by the date of the accident.

b) On 22-12-2010, while the petitioner and one Buddanna were proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration no.AP21AE-9222 from

Venkatachalapathy Nagar to Kurnool and when they reached near

Ambedkar Nagar at Vengannabaavi at 7.00 p.m., auto bearing registration

P.D.J. MVOP 614 of 2011 2 no.AP21TU-3114, being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came in opposite direction and dashed against the right side of the said motor cycle, as a result of which, the petitioner and the pillion rider fell from the motor cycle and sustained injuries.

Immediately after the accident, the injured petitioner was admitted in

Government General Hospital, Kurnool, and from there, he was shifted to

Sri New Balaji Super Speciality Hospital, Kurnool, where the petitioner underwent operation and he was discharged on 30-12-2010. The petitioner spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical, treatment and other expenses.

c) Basing on the report given by the petitioner, Kurnool Taluk police registered a case in Crime No.328 of 2010 against the driver of the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 and after due investigation, filed charge sheet against the driver of the first respondent.

d) The first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the insurer of the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 and thus, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation to the petitioner.

3. The first respondent remained ex parte.

4. The second respondent/Insurance Company filed counter and

additional counter, denying the manner of accident and sustaining injuries

by the petitioner in the alleged accident. The petitioner is put to strict documentary medical proof as to the injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident. The petitioner is put to strict proof of his age and health condition as on the date of the accident. The second respondent contended that the driver of the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114

P.D.J. MVOP 614 of 2011 3 had no valid and effective driving license to drive the said auto and thereby, the first respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy, hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The second respondent further contended that the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was never involved in the alleged accident and even as per the wound certificate issued by the doctor, the petitioner sustained injuries due to collision of tractor and bike.

It is also contended that the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the petitioner and as such, the owner and the insurer of the motor cycle bearing registration no.AP21AE-9222 are necessary and proper parties to this petition. The compensation claimed under different heads is too high and excessive and thereby prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Upon the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred, and if so, was it due to the fault of the driver of the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 or the petitioner being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration no.AP21AE-9222?

2. Whether the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU- 3114 is owned by the first respondent and stood insured with the second respondent by the date of the accident, and if so, whether the policy covers the risk of the petitioner?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?

4. To what relief?

6. Pending petition, the second respondent filed I.A. No.314 of 2015 under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking permission of this

Tribunal to take all defences that are available to the owner of the crime auto, and the same was allowed on 16-02-2015.

P.D.J. MVOP 614 of 2011 4

7. On behalf of the petitioner, himself was examined as PW1 and

Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent/

Insurance Company, its Senior Executive Legal was examined as RW1 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

8. Heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the second respondent has also filed written arguments on behalf of the second respondent and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in “The Managing

Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited -Vs- D.Kristina Sagaya Mary”, in C.M.A. (NPD) No.1067 of 2005, dated 30-09-2009.

9. ISSUE No.1:

The petitioner is the injured in the accident. The petitioner is examined as PW1. He was the rider of the motor cycle at the time of the accident. The evidence of the petitioner cannot be disbelieved, since he was injured and direct eye witness to the accident. The contention of the learned Counsel for the second respondent is that there was no involvement of the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 in the alleged accident. The contention of the learned Counsel for the second respondent is that the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was planted. Additional counter was filed on behalf of the second respondent, alleging that the tractor was involved in the accident, but not the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114. The learned Counsel for the second respondent mainly relied on Ex.A3, wound certificate, wherein, it was mentioned that the accident occurred due to collision between the tractor and the bike. Thus, the contention of the learned Counsel for the second respondent and also in the written arguments is that the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was planted and it was not involved in the accident.

P.D.J. MVOP 614 of 2011 5

The second respondent at the first instance filed counter, alleging that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 and that the accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioner himself. At the first instance, the Insurance

Company had not taken the plea that the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was not involved in the accident, but a tractor was involved. Subsequently, after a later date, the Insurance Company took the plea that the tractor was involved basing on the mere averment in

Ex.A3, wound certificate. On the other hand, the documents filed by the petitioner would go to show that the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU- 3114 was involved in the accident. The petitioner has to establish that there was accident in which the offending auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was involved and further to establish that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. I have already stated that the petitioner was injured in the accident and his evidence cannot be brushed aside easily. The evidence of the petitioner would go to show that the accident occurred on 22-12-2010 at about 7.00 p.m. on Dhone-

Kurnool Highway near Ambedkar Nagar, on the outskirts of Kurnool. The petitioner was driving the motor cycle bearing registration no.AP21AE- 9222. He along with the pillion rider were returning to Kurnool and the driver of the offending auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner by coming from Kurnool side and came on a wrong side and dashed against the motor cycle and as a result, the petitioner and the pillion rider fell from the motor cycle and sustained injuries. This is how the accident took place. There is absolutely no proof filed by the second respondent that the tractor was involved in the accident, but not the auto. There is absolutely no scrap of paper filed by the second respondent that the tractor was really involved in the accident and its registration number etc.

P.D.J. MVOP 614 of 2011 6

A stray writing in Ex.A3, wound certificate will not affect the case of the petitioner, as he was not the author of the wound certificate and it was not known who gave particulars to the duty doctor while admitting the petitioner with injuries. There must be some proof from the side of the

Insurance Company that the tractor with its registration number was actually involved in the accident, but not the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114. RW1 was examined on behalf of the second respondent, but he had not filed proof that the tractor was involved in the accident.

10. On the other hand, the petitioner filed Ex.A1, which is the certified copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.328 of 2010 of Kurnool Taluk Police Station.

On the report of the petitioner, F.I.R. was registered. There is a clear recital that the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was involved in the accident. The statement of the petitioner was recorded in Government

General Hospital, Kurnool. Then, how the petitioner could give information to the doctor about the involvement of the tractor in the accident. So, the F.I.R. discloses the involvement of the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 in the accident. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge-sheet. The police after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114. Thus, the investigation disclosed the involvement of the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 in the accident. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is able to establish that the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was involved in the accident.

Mere delay in lodging F.I.R. is not fatal in the case of the petition filed for compensation.

P.D.J. MVOP 614 of 2011 7

11. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the second respondent is that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114. The owner of the offending auto was set ex parte. There is also no proof that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner resulting in the accident. So, the evidence on record – both oral and documentary, would establish that the offending auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was involved in the accident and it was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said auto by its driver. Hence, the owner and the insurer of the motor cycle are not necessary and proper parties to this petition.

This issue is held in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.

12. ISSUE Nos.2 and 3:

These two issues can be decided by a common finding. It is not in dispute that the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was insured with the second respondent. Ex.B1 is the Policy copy. Even RW1 admitted that the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was insured with the second respondent. So, there is absolutely no dispute that the offending auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was duly insured with the second respondent.

PAIN AND SUFFERING:

According to the petitioner, he sustained injuries in the accident and he was first taken to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and later, shifted to New Balaji Super Speciality Hospital, Kurnool. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner. According to Ex.A3, the petitioner sustained following injuries.

P.D.J. MVOP 614 of 2011 8

1. Pain in the chest.

2. 8 x 4 cms. large laceration over left ankle joint.

3. 5 x 4 cms. abrasion just below the left knee joint.

4. 4 x 1 cm. laceration on the left side of the neck.

5. 3 x 1 cm. laceration on the right side of neck.

Ex.A3 further fracture of talus (left ankle). So, the petitioner sustained fracture injuries in the accident. It is but natural that the petitioner should have suffered pain due to the above injuries. He is, therefore, granted compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is just and reasonable.

13. LOSS OF INCOME:

According to the petitioner, he was aged 32 years and earning

Rs.6,000/- per month by doing business in papad and songal. Of course, the petitioner has not filed any proof regarding his income at Rs.6,000/- per month by doing business of papad and songal. He has not produced any evidence. However, the petitioner was hale and healthy at the time of the accident and was aged 32 years as per the petition. The petitioner should have taken rest for three months to recover from the wounds. The petitioner could easily earn Rs.3,000/- per month at the rate of Rs.100/- per day on an average even by doing coolie work. Therefore, the petitioner should have suffered loss of income for three months and thus, he is granted compensation of Rs.9,000/- towards loss of income for three months.

14. EXTRA NOURISHMENT AND TRANSPORT CHARGES:

The petitioner was first taken to Government General Hospital,

Kurnool and from there, he allegedly took treatment in New Balaji Super

P.D.J. MVOP 614 of 2011 9

Speciality Hospital, Kurnool. The petitioner should have incurred expenses for transportation and further should have incurred amount towards extra nourishment to recover from the wounds. Therefore, the petitioner is granted compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment and transport charges.

15.MEDICAL EXPENSES:

As seen from Ex.A3, the petitioner sustained fracture injuries in the accident. According to the petitioner, he was shifted to New Balaji Super

Speciality Hospital, Kurnool from Government General Hospital, Kurnool.

He filed Ex.A4, bunch of medical bills for Rs.14,953/-, which is rounded to

Rs.14,950/- and Ex.A5, discharge card issued by New Balaji Super

Speciality Hospital, Kurnool. As per Ex.A5, the petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 30-12-2010. So, basing on the nature of injuries sustained in the accident, it is but natural that the petitioner should have incurred expenditure for medical expenses. Hence, the petitioner is granted compensation of Rs.14,950/- towards medical expenses.

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of

Rs.56,950/-.

16. BY WHOM PAYABLE:

P.D.J. MVOP 614 of 2011 10 3114 involved in the accident was insured with the second respondent by the date of the accident. The petitioner is a third party. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

These two issues are accordingly held in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

17. ISSUE No.4:

In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs and interest;

(a) directing the respondents 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.56,950/- (Rupees fifty six thousand nine hundred and fifty only) as compensation to the petitioner and future interest is granted at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till payment;

(b) Two months time is granted to the respondents 1 & 2 to deposit the compensation amount into court;

(c) On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount, since the same is a meagre amount;

(d) Rest of the petition claim is dismissed without costs; and

(e) Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, this the 28 th day of September 2015.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge, Kurnool.

P.D.J. MVOP 614 of 2011 11

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For petitioner:

PW1: Kummari Mallikarjuna, S/o.Lakshmanna, resident of Shareen Nagar, Kurnool.

For second respondent:

RW1: T.Niranjan, S/o.T.S.Vasantha Kesavulu, Senior Executive-Legal, M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad.

Exhibits marked

For petitioner:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of First information report in Crime No.328/2010 of Kurnool Taluk Police Station.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge-sheet.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner.

Ex.A4: Bunch of medical bills 26 in number amounting to Rs.14,953/-.

Ex.A5: Discharge card.

For second respondent:

Ex.B1: Attested copy of insurance policy.

Ex.B2: Unserved registered cover issued to R1.

Ex.B3: Postal receipt.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge, Kurnool.

MVOP/615/2011

Kummari Buddappa @ Buddanna vs Vadla Mallikarjuna Achari and another

28 Sep 2015

BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL, KURNOOL

PRESENT: Sri R.Murali, Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool -cum- Principal District Judge, Kurnool.

Monday, the 28th day of September 2015.

M.V.O.P. No.615 of 2011

K.Buddappa @ Buddanna .. Petitioner

-Versus-

1. V.Mallikarjuna Achari

2. M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance .. Respondents

Co. Ltd., rep. by its Manager, Pune

This petition coming on 23-09-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and

O R D E R

This petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 166 (1)

(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying the Court to grant compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident and for interest and costs.

2. The averments in the petition, in brief, are as follows:-

a) The petitioner was aged 30 years and he was doing business by the date of the accident.

b) On 22-12-2010, while the petitioner and one Kummari

Mallikarjuna were proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration no.AP21AE-9222 from Venkatachalapathy Nagar to Kurnool and when they reached near Ambedkar Nagar at Vengannabaavi at 7.00 p.m., auto

P.D.J. MVOP 615 of 2011 2 bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114, being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came in opposite direction and dashed against the right side of the said motor cycle, as a result of which, the petitioner and the rider fell from the motor cycle and sustained injuries.

Immediately after the accident, the injured petitioner was admitted in

Government General Hospital, Kurnool, where he was treated for nearly one month. The petitioner spent Rs.30,000/- towards medical, treatment and other expenses.

3. The first respondent remained ex parte.

4. The second respondent/Insurance Company filed counter and

additional counter, denying the manner of accident and sustaining injuries

P.D.J. MVOP 615 of 2011 3 policy, hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The second respondent further contended that the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was never involved in the alleged accident and even as per the wound certificate issued by the doctor, the petitioner sustained injuries due to collision of tractor and bike.

It is also contended that the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle and as such, the owner and the insurer of the motor cycle bearing registration no.AP21AE-9222 are necessary and proper parties to this petition. The compensation claimed under different heads is too high and excessive and thereby prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Upon the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:-

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?

4. To what relief?

6. Pending petition, the second respondent filed I.A. No.316 of 2015 under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking permission of this

Tribunal to take all defences that are available to the owner of the crime auto, and the same was allowed on 16-02-2015.

P.D.J. MVOP 615 of 2011 4

7. On behalf of the petitioner, himself was examined as PW1 and

Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent/

Insurance Company, its Senior Executive Legal was examined as RW1 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited -Vs- D.Kristina Sagaya Mary”, in C.M.A. (NPD) No.1067 of 2005, dated 30-09-2009.

9. ISSUE No.1:

The petitioner is the injured in the accident. The petitioner is examined as PW1. He was the pillion rider of the motor cycle at the time of the accident. The evidence of the petitioner cannot be disbelieved, since he was injured and direct eye witness to the accident. The contention of the learned Counsel for the second respondent is that there was no involvement of the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 in the alleged accident. The contention of the learned Counsel for the second respondent is that the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was planted. Additional counter was filed on behalf of the second respondent, alleging that the tractor was involved in the accident, but not the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114. The learned Counsel for the second respondent mainly relied on Ex.A3, wound certificate, wherein, it was mentioned that the accident occurred due to collision between the tractor and the bike. Thus, the contention of the learned Counsel for the second respondent and also in the written arguments is that the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was planted and it was not involved in the accident.

P.D.J. MVOP 615 of 2011 5

The second respondent at the first instance filed counter, alleging that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 and that the accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motor cycle himself. At the first instance, the

Insurance Company had not taken the plea that the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was not involved in the accident, but a tractor was involved. Subsequently, after a later date, the Insurance

Company took the plea that the tractor was involved basing on the mere averment in Ex.A3, wound certificate. On the other hand, the documents filed by the petitioner would go to show that the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was involved in the accident. The petitioner has to establish that there was accident in which the offending auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was involved and further to establish that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. I have already stated that the petitioner was injured in the accident and his evidence cannot be brushed aside easily. The evidence of the petitioner would go to show that the accident occurred on 22-12-2010 at about 7.00 p.m. on

Dhone-Kurnool Highway near Ambedkar Nagar, on the outskirts of

Kurnool. The petitioner was the pillion rider of the motor cycle bearing registration no.AP21AE-9222. He along with the rider were returning to

Kurnool and the driver of the offending auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner by coming from Kurnool side and came on a wrong side and dashed against the motor cycle and as a result, the petitioner and the rider fell from the motor cycle and sustained injuries. This is how the accident took place. There is absolutely no proof filed by the second respondent that the tractor was involved in the accident, but not the auto.

There is absolutely no scrap of paper filed by the second respondent that the tractor was really involved in the accident and its registration number

P.D.J. MVOP 615 of 2011 6 etc. A stray writing in Ex.A3, wound certificate will not affect the case of the petitioner, as he was not the author of the wound certificate and it was not known who gave particulars to the duty doctor while admitting the petitioner with injuries. There must be some proof from the side of the

10. On the other hand, the petitioner filed Ex.A1, which is the certified copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.328 of 2010 of Kurnool Taluk Police Station.

On the report of the pillion rider of the motor cycle, F.I.R. was registered.

There is a clear recital that the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was involved in the accident. The statement of the pillion rider of the motor cycle was recorded in Government General Hospital, Kurnool.

Then, how the pillion rider of the motor cycle or the petitioner could give information to the doctor about the involvement of the tractor in the accident. So, the F.I.R. discloses the involvement of the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 in the accident. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge-sheet. The police after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114. Thus, the investigation disclosed the involvement of the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 in the accident. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is able to establish that the auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 was involved in the accident.

Mere delay in lodging F.I.R. is not fatal in the case of the petition filed for compensation.

P.D.J. MVOP 615 of 2011 7

This issue is held in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.

12. ISSUE Nos.2 and 3:

PAIN AND SUFFERING:

According to the petitioner, he sustained injuries in the accident and he was taken to Government General Hospital, Kurnool. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner. According to Ex.A3, the petitioner sustained following injuries.

1. 2 x 2 cms. abrasion on left lateral aspect of foot.

P.D.J. MVOP 615 of 2011 8

2. Swelling and deformity in left ankle.

Ex.A3 further fracture of calcaneum (right foot). So, the petitioner sustained fracture injuries in the accident. It is but natural that the petitioner should have suffered pain due to the above injuries. He is, therefore, granted compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is just and reasonable.

13. LOSS OF INCOME:

According to the petitioner, he was aged 30 years and earning

Rs.6,000/- per month by doing business in papad and songal. Of course, the petitioner has not filed any proof regarding his income at Rs.6,000/- per month by doing business of papad and songal. He has not produced any evidence. However, the petitioner was hale and healthy at the time of the accident and was aged 30 years as per the petition. The petitioner should have taken rest for three months to recover from the wounds. The petitioner could easily earn Rs.3,000/- per month at the rate of Rs.100/- per day on an average even by doing coolie work. Therefore, the petitioner should have suffered loss of income for three months and thus, he is granted compensation of Rs.9,000/- towards loss of income for three months.

14. EXTRA NOURISHMENT AND TRANSPORT CHARGES:

The petitioner should have incurred expenses for transportation and further should have incurred amount towards extra nourishment to recover from the wounds. Therefore, the petitioner is granted compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment and transport charges.

P.D.J. MVOP 615 of 2011 9

15.MEDICAL EXPENSES:

The petitioner took treatment in Government General Hospital,

Kurnool. The petitioner admitted that treatment in Government General

Hospital, Kurnool was free of cost. So, the petitioner was given free treatment in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. However, all types of medicines may not be available in Government General Hospital, Kurnool.

Therefore, the petitioner should have incurred expenses for purchase of medicines from retail medical shops. The petitioner filed Ex.A4, bunch of medical bills for Rs.1,558/-, which is rounded to Rs.1,560/-. So, basing on

Ex.A4, medical bills and basing on the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, even though, he took treatment free of cost in Government

General Hospital, Kurnool, he is granted compensation of Rs.1,560/- towards medical expenses.

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of

Rs.43,560/-.

16. BY WHOM PAYABLE:

The first respondent is the owner of the offending auto bearing registration no.AP21TU-3114 and it is duly insured with the second respondent by the date of the accident. Ex.B1 is the copy of policy. The learned Counsel for the second respondent relied on the decision cited supra. The facts of the said decision are different to the facts of this case, hence, the said decision has no application to the facts of the case. The undisputed fact is that the offending auto bearing registration no.AP21TU- 3114 involved in the accident was insured with the second respondent by the date of the accident. The petitioner is a third party. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

P.D.J. MVOP 615 of 2011 10

These two issues are accordingly held in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

17. ISSUE No.4:

In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs and interest;

(a) directing the respondents 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.43,560/- (Rupees forty three thousand five hundred and sixty only) as compensation to the petitioner and future interest is granted at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till payment;

(b) Two months time is granted to the respondents 1 & 2 to deposit the compensation amount into court;

(c) On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount, since the same is a meagre amount;

(d) Rest of the petition claim is dismissed without costs; and

(e) Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, this the 28 th day of September 2015.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge, Kurnool.

P.D.J. MVOP 615 of 2011 11

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For petitioner:

PW1: K.Buddappa @ Buddanna, S/o. Kesanna, resident of Kosigi Road, Near Sunnambatti, Mahaboobnagar District.

For second respondent:

RW1: T.Niranjan, S/o.T.S.Vasantha Kesavulu, Senior Executive-Legal, M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad.

Exhibits marked

For petitioner:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of First information report in Crime No.328/2010 of Kurnool Taluk Police Station.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge-sheet.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner.

Ex.A4: Bunch of medical bills 6 in number amounting to Rs.1,558/-.

Ex.A5: Discharge card 2 in number.

Ex.A6: X-ray films 17 in number.

For second respondent:

Ex.B1: Attested copy of insurance policy.

Ex.B2: Letter issued to R1.

Ex.B3: Postal receipt.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge, Kurnool.

Order Record 155 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CRLMP.BAIL/1746/2015	M.Ravi Kumar vs State rep. by SHO	29 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
MVOP/614/2011	Kummari Mallikarjuna vs Vadla Mallikarjuna Achari and another	28 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/615/2011	Kummari Buddappa @ Buddanna vs Vadla Mallikarjuna Achari and another	28 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1687/2015	Bhumani Veeranna vs State rep. by its Inspector of Police	28 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1737/2015	Shaik Mahaboob Baig alias Mahaboob vs State rep. by SHO of Nandikotkur	28 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
OP/76/2015	Madam Praveena alias Praveena Mary vs Komera Sudhakar	23 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/11/2014	T.Venkataswamy vs Shaik Saleem	22 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/99/2010	N.Nagendraprasad vs M.Ravikumar 2.Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.	21 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/10/2014	P.Maheswari vs Nallagondla Surendra	21 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
T.R.CRLMP/1127/2015	K.Siva Kumar vs State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police	21 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1700/2015	Arey Bala Swamy vs State rep by SHO	19 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
A.R.B.O.P/47/2015	Ms Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., Kurnool vs Kuluru Lakshmi Reddy	18 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
A.R.B.O.P/50/2015	Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.,Kurnool vs Tarigopula Manohar Reddy	18 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1661/2015	Shaik Muhammad Issak vs State by S.H.O. of IV Town PS	14 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
MVOP/395/2014	Mandla Boya Suvarnamma vs P.Venkata Ranga Reddy	12 Sep 2015	Copy of other	—
MVOP/463/2015	V.Suvarna vs V.B.R.Murthy	12 Sep 2015	Copy of other	—
AS/25/2012	B.Nagesh Sastry vs Vishnu Constructions, Kurnool.	11 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1539/2015	Gajula Swamulu vs State by SHO Kurnool Taluk PS	10 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1631/2015	K.V.Hari Krishna alias Hari Kishan vs State rep. by S.H.O. of Dhone Town PS	10 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1632/2015	Arey Bala Swamy vs State rep. by S.H.O. of Brahmanakotkur PS	10 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1642/2015	Shaik Muntza vs State rep. by S.H.O. Nandikotkur PS	10 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1660/2015	M.Ravi Kumar vs State by S.H.O. of Kurnool IV Town PS	10 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
T.R.O.P/4/2015	M.Lakshmi alias Lakshmi Devi vs M.Siva Lingam	10 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
T.R.O.P/96/2014	L.Ramakrishna Reddy vs A.Lakshmi Narayana	10 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1534/2015	Madiga Surapogu Maddilety@Badri vs State by S.H.O Kodumur P.S	09 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1590/2015	Chanti alias Neelishikari Chanti alias Krishna ali vs State by SHO of Bramhanakotkur PS	09 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1591/2015	Rodda Jayamma vs State by SHO of Velgodu PS	09 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1662/2015	T.E.Dinesh Goud vs State by SHO of Dhone Town PS	08 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
MVOP/206/2013	Kommu Kambagiri vs B.Venkata Subbamma	07 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
G.W.O.P/31/2015	M.Meharunnisa vs Nil	07 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
T.R.O.P/48/2015	C.A.Venkateswara Varma vs B.Sudarshan Reddy	07 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
ATA/2/2013	R.Sudhakar vs Smt.Koguru Sarada	04 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/164/2014	E.Madana Manohar Babu vs P.Priyanka	04 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1641/2015	M.Ravi Kumar vs State by S.H.O. of IV Town PS	04 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
T.R.O.P/97/2014	Boya Raghavendra vs Boya Venkateshulu alias Venkatesh	04 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLRP/45/2015	K.Nagaraju vs D.C.Hussain Saheb	03 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1570/2015	Malireddy Pedda Venkateswarlu vs State by S.H.O. of Kothapalli PS	03 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
T.R.O.P/10/2015	S.Kamalakshi vs B.Ravindra	03 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1527/2015	Koilakonda Sreenivasulu alias Sreenu vs State by SHO of Dhone Town PS	02 Sep 2015	Copy of Order	—
T.R.O.P/70/2014	B.Shashikala vs K.Madan Kumar	02 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/119/2015	V.M.Anwar vs Farzana Begum	01 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/46/2012	Nandyala Vemanatham vs B.Sreeramulu	31 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1529/2015	Cinganapalle Venkateswarlu vs State by S.H.O Kodumur P.S	31 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1533/2015	Shaik Muhammad Issak vs State by SHO, IV Town PS	31 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
G.W.O.P/87/2014	Giddesab Gari Hussain Bee vs Nil	31 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1554/2015	Velpula Chinna Muniswamy alias Chinna Swamulu vs State rep. by SHO Brahmanakotkur PS	29 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
MVOP/112/2014	Boya Gundala Sivanna vs Arava Sreenivasulu	28 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1472/2015	Chakali Madhu alias Gampagadu vs State rep. by S.H.O. of Veldurthy PS	28 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLA/147/2015	R.Anil Kumar vs K.Uma	27 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1385/2015	Bhumani Veeranna vs State rep. by its Inspector of Police	27 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1407/2015	Ravi Kumar alias Bollavaram Ravi Kumar alias yesan vs State by S.H.O. of Jupadu Bunglow PS	27 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
OS/100/2014	M.Nageswara Rao vs Bandike Madan Mohan	26 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
MVOP/924/2008	Anadanam Hussainaiah and another vs Ms Brilliant Industries Ltd., 2.New India Assurance Co., Ltd.	25 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/95/2013	Y.Venkateswar Reddy vs K.Siva Kiran Reddy	25 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1505/2015	Shaik Muntza vs State rep. by S.H.O. Nandikotkur PS	25 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
EP/1/2014	Tata Capital Finance Services Ltd vs S.Chand Basha	24 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1415/2015	M.Ravi Kumar vs State by S.H.O. of IV Town PS	24 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
OP/15/2015	Byla Harika Priya Darshini vs Byla Meshak	21 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/48/2011	B.Prathapa Reddy vs Smt.Golla Lakshmidevi and another	20 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1443/2015	Boya Meeniga Madhu vs State by S.H.O. of Bethamcherla PS	18 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1441/2015	Nagamalla Vamshi Sai Theja alias Vamsi vs State by S.H.O of III town PS	14 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1442/2015	Kuruva Gorantla Jagannatham alias Uppari Jagannath vs State rep. by S.H.O. Jaladurgam PS	14 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1450/2015	Reddy Pogu Anil vs State by S.I. of Police, Kurnool III Town PS	14 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
G.W.O.P/69/2015	Smt.Manchala Mrudula vs Nil	14 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/70/2014	Ms Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd., vs K.Lakshmi	13 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/336/2012	Kota Swamulu vs U.Surendra Reddy	13 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1363/2015	Vanipenta Syamkumar Reddy vs State by S.H.O. Dhone Town PS	13 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1382/2015	Rodda Jayamma vs State by S.H.O. of Velgode PS	12 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1396/2015	Cinganapalle Venkateswarlu vs State rep. by SHO of Krishnagiri PS	12 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1397/2015	Vijaya Bhaskar vs State rep. by SHO of Krishnagiri PS	12 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1398/2015	Nanvath Chinna Venkatesh Naik vs State by S.H.O. of Bethamcherla PS	12 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1318/2015	Madiga Surapogu Maddilety alias Badri vs State by S.H.O. Kodumur PS	11 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
MVOP/23/2013	M.Brahman @ Naresh and 3 others vs D.Eswar and 2 others	10 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLA/88/2015	D.Khaja Fareed vs Vigilance and Enforcement Offices and The Tahsilda	10 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/94/2015	K.Shyam Prasad vs The Deputy Civil Supplies	10 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/107/2015	Devi Traders vs The Vigilance and Enforcement Officials,	10 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/108/2015	Sri Jagadamba Modern Rice Mill vs The Vigilance and Enforcement Officials,	10 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/34/2015	Inspector of Police vs Thota Venkateswara Swamy	10 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/514/2012	K.Balanna vs S.Madhu Sudhana Reddy	08 Aug 2015	Copy of other	—
CRLA/125/2015	B.Sreekanth Reddy vs Y.Neeraja	07 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1362/2015	Sandepogu Sudhakar vs The S.H.O. of IV Town PS	06 Aug 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLRP/21/2012	V.Adilakshmi vs Gmt.Gurujala	04 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
T.R.CRLMP/608/2015	Pinjari Shaikshavali vs Harijana Prasad	04 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
T.R.CRLMP/494/2015	Dr.Prasanna Kumari vs Dr.Chandra Sekhar Rao	03 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/537/2011	G.Ramalakshmi @ Ramalaxmamma vs A.P.S.R.T.C	31 Jul 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1346/2015	T.Venkata Ramana vs State by S.H.O. I Town PS	31 Jul 2015	Copy of Order	—
G.W.O.P/57/2015	V.Gnana Suseelamma vs Nil	31 Jul 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
T.R.O.P/48/2014	New India Assurance Company Limited vs P.Madhavi	31 Jul 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
T.R.O.P/61/2014	K.Koteswaramma vs M.Jaibuneesa	31 Jul 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
T.R.O.P/82/2014	Smt.K.Chaitnya vs K.Muddu Swamy	31 Jul 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1271/2015	Jala Murali vs State of A.P. rep. by S.H.O Pamulapadu PS	30 Jul 2015	Copy of Order	—
T.R.O.P/37/2014	Pandugala Bharathi alias Badvelu Bharathi vs Badvelu Bhaskar	30 Jul 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
T.R.O.P/75/2015	K.Ranga Swamy vs A P S R T C	30 Jul 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CMA/19/2013	K.Srinivasulu vs Jagan Mohan	28 Jul 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1279/2015	Polakanti Ravi alias Dadapogu Ravi vs State by S.H.O. of Kodumur PS	28 Jul 2015	Copy of Order	—
SC/159/2014	The Inspector of Police, vs D.Gattaiah alias Satish	24 Jul 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/16/2012	T.Raju vs R.Rani Bai	23 Jul 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1216/2015	Rodda Jayamma vs State by S.H.O. of Velgode PS	23 Jul 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1222/2015	Bandameedi Srinivasulu vs State by S.H.O. of Orvakal PS	23 Jul 2015	Copy of Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/1267/2015	J.Jadadoddi Madhu vs State by S.H.O. Peapully PS	23 Jul 2015	Copy of Order	—

Showing 100 of 155 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Sep 2015		41
Aug 2015		43
Jul 2015		41
Jun 2015		30

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri R.Murali handled?

Sri R.Murali has handled 155 court orders since 2015 at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool. The average disposal rate is 36 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri R.Murali hear?

Based on available records, Sri R.Murali primarily handles Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Civil matters (Appeal Suits, Original Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Appeals) at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool.

Where is Sri R.Murali currently posted?

Sri R.Murali is posted as Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri R.Murali available online?

Yes. 2 judgments by Sri R.Murali are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri R.Murali dispose cases?

Sri R.Murali disposes approximately 36 cases per month, based on 155 orders handled over their tenure at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool.

Since when is Sri R.Murali serving?

Sri R.Murali has been serving at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool since 2015.

Case Types

CRLMP 45%

T 17%

MVOP 14%

CRLA 8%

CRLRP 4%

AS 4%

OP 4%

OS 4%

Posting History

May 2015 — Sep 2015

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool · 155 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri G.Kabardhi

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool

1,856 orders

Smt. P. Kamala Devi

I Addl. District And Sessions Judge, Kurnool

0 orders

P.vasu

Spl. Court for SC/ST Cases-Cum-VI ADJ Court,KNL

213 orders

T.leelavathi

Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessio...

250 orders

Smt T.Malleswari

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool

1,112 orders

K V Ramakrishnaiah

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool

0 orders

← View all judges at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool