Smt. Shoukath Jahan Siddique

Fair copy

IN THE COURT OF XXVII ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,

SECUNDERABAD.

Present: Smt. Shoukath Jahan Siddique XII Additional Chief Judge FAC/XXVII Additional Chief Judge Secunderabad.

MONDAY, THE 03 rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

AS.No.24 OF 2023

Between:

T.V.Rahul S/o.Late T.Jai Shanker, aged 24 years.

... Appellant/defendants

AND

1.M.Vinayak, S/o.M.Govind Rao, aged 76 years, Occ:Business.

2.T.V.Dharmendra, S/o.Late Venkat Swamy, aged 45 years.

3.T.V.Harish Chander, S/o.Late Venkat Swamy, aged 65 years.

4.T.V.Vidya Sagar, S/o.Late Venkat Swamy, aged 60 years.

5.T.V.Ravinder, S/o.Late Venkat Swamy, aged 44 years.

6.T.V.Srinivas S/o.Late Venkat Swamy, aged 40 years.

7.Smt.P.J.Sai Kumar, W/o.Late T.Jaisurya, aged 60 years.

8.T.J.Praveen, S/o.Late T.Jaisurya, aged 35 years.

9.T.J.Harita, D/o.Late T.Jaisurya, aged 54 years.

10. T.V.Devika, W/o.Late T.Jai Shanker aged 54 years.

11. T.V.Aishwarya, D/o.Late T.Jai Shanker aged 20 years 2 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023

... Respondents/Plaintiffs

APPEAL PREFERRED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY

III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD DATED

17.03.2023

IN

O.S.NO.454 OF 2014

Between:

M.Vinayak, S/o.M.Govind Rao, aged 76 years, Occ:Business.

... Plaintiff

AND

1.T.V.Harish Chander, S/o.Late Venkat Swamy, aged 65 years.

2.T.V.Vidya Sagar, S/o.Late Venkat Swamy, aged 60 years.

3.T.V.Ravinder, S/o.Late Venkat Swamy, aged 44 years.

4.T.V.Dharmendra, S/o.Late Venkat Swamy, aged 45 years.

5.T.V.Srinivas S/o.Late Venkat Swamy, aged 40 years.

6.Smt.P.J.Sai Kumar, W/o.Late T.Jaisurya, aged 60 years.

7.T.J.Praveen, S/o.Late T.Jaisurya, aged 35 years.

8.T.J.Harita, D/o.Late T.Jaisurya, aged 54 years.

9.T.V.Devika, W/o.Late T.Jai Shanker aged 54 years.

10. T.V.Aishwarya, D/o.Late T.Jai Shanker aged about 20 years

11. T.V.Rahul S/o.Late T.Jai Shanker, aged about 24 years.

... Defendants

3 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023

This appeal is coming before me on 05.12.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Shaik Samiullah, Counsel for the Appellant, M/s.Ganu & Co., Counsel for Respondent No.1,and Respondent Nos.2,4 to 6, 10 & 11 were set exparte and respondent Nos.3,7 to 9 are co-existing with other respondents, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Defendants aggrieved by the

Judgment and decree dated 17.03.2023 passed by III Senior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court, Secunderabad in OS.No.454/2014.

2.For the sake of convenience, this court is referring the Appellant as ‘Defendants’ and respondents as ‘plaintiff’ as arrayed in the Trial Court.

3.The brief facts of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of premises bearing No.1-7-310 (old No.123), Barbar Bridge, M.G.Road,

Secunderabad constructed on land admeasuring 678 sq.yards having plinth area of about 1300 sq.feet which consists of four rooms, one verandah and open land and the suit schedule property was purchased under registered sale deeds. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 along with Late Sri T.V.Jayasurya and

Late Sri T.V.Vijay Shankar have been in occupation of the suit schedule property as tenants. Due to death of Late Sri T.V.Jayasurya and Late Sri

T.V.Vijay Shankar their legal heirs i.e. defendant Nos.6 to 11 who are in possession of suit schedule property along with defendant Nos.1 to 5 are 4 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023 also made parties to the suit and the rent payable was Rs.70/- per month initially.

While so, the plaintiff filed RC.No.115/2005 on the file of Principal

Rent Controller, Hyderabad U/Section 4 of AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and

Eviction) Control Act for fixation of fair rent of Rs.10,000/- per month and the same was partly allowed fixing the rent @Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of filing the petitioner (i.e. from September 2005). The plaintiff challenged the above order in RA.No.365/2010, dt.29.04.2010 on the file of Hon’ble Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the said appeal was partly allowed vide order dt.06.03.2012 by increasing the rent to Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of the petition. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff filed CRP.No.2253/2012 and the defendant Nos.3 to 5 filed CRP.No.2148/2012 before Hon’ble High Court. Both the revision petitions were disposed off by Hon’ble High Court by a common Judgment dt.08.07.2014 wherein the Hon’ble High Court upheld the quantum of rent fixed by appellate court @Rs.4,000/- from the date of the petition i.e.

September, 2005 and also ordered to increase in the rent every two years @10% on the existing rent. Further the rent for the period from

September, 2007 to August, 2009 would be Rs.4,400/- per month,

September, 2009 to August, 2011 Rs.4,840/-, September, 2011 to August, 2013 Rs.5,324/- per month and for the period from September, 2013 onwards @Rs.5,856.40 per month.

5 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023

It is further pleaded that the plaintiff had called upon the defendants to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession thereof as the plaintiff requires the same for self occupation, but the defendants have been declining to vacate the said premises on one pretext or the other. In view of such tactics being adopted by the defendants, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 09.09.2014 to defendant Nos.1 to 8 and on 29.10.2014 another legal notice was issued to defendant Nos.9 to 11, terminating the tenancy in respect of suit schedule property and specifically calling upon the defendants to vacate and hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The said notice was received by the defendant Nos.4,6,7 & 8 and the notice sent to defendant

Nos.1 to 3,5,9 to 11 were returned as ‘not claimed’ or ‘left’. The notice was served/returned to the defendants respectively. That none of the defendants have issued any reply to the notices dt.09.09.2014 or 29.10.2014, which were issued by the plaintiff, nor vacated and handed over vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore the plaintiff is left with no other alternative but to approach this court. Hence the suit.

4.Defendant No.3 filed written statement contending that he did not receive any legal notice dt.09.09.2014 stated to have been issued to him.

Hence, absolutely there is no legally valid service of notice on him. As such the suit based on such legal notice is defective and liable to be dismissed with costs. When defendant No.3 did not receive any notice the question of 6 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023 delivery of possession does not arise. The defendant No.3 did not receive any termination notice as such the suit is bad and not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with costs. Since there is no proper service of notice on defendant No.3 the question of termination of tenancy does not arise as such the main suit is not maintainable under law. So also the claim of rent of Rs.50,000/- is abnormal and huge even though there is no such demand for the same and thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to any such amount.

5.Defendant No.4 filed written statement contending that he received the registered cover on 11.09.2014 from the counsel for the plaintiff which contained the first two pages of Hon’ble High Court orders in CRPs.

Therefore the contention of the plaintiff that his tenancy is terminated by the termination notices dt.09.09.2014 and 29.10.2014 is incorrect. That the demised premises is having narrow common passage and on the southern side of the property there is a big nala, which emanates foul smell and causes health hazards. Therefore there is no scope for getting more rent in for the demised premises. Further he effected periodical repairs to the premises since it is old titled house with two open sheds and neither the plaintiff nor the vendors have contributed any amount for the maintenance.

Therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

6.Defendant No.11 filed written statement contending that the tenancy is governed by the Telangana Rent Control Act and defendant No.11 is a statutory tenant and his tenancy cannot be terminated U/Section 106 of 7 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023

Transfer of Property Act and he has not received any termination notice from the defendants at any point of time. Therefore on the said sole ground itself the suit is liable to be dismissed.

7.The remaining defendants were set exparte and remained exparte.

8.Basing on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendants from the suit schedule property as prayed for ?

2. Whether the defendants are liable to pay past mesne profits as prayed for ?

3. Whether the defendants are liable to pay future mesne profits as prayed for ?

4. To what relief ?

9.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A17. On behalf of the defendants no witness is examined and no documents are marked.

8 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023

10.After hearing both sides, the Trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 17.03.2023, passed by III Senior

Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, the present appeal is filed by

the defendantsas appellant on the following grounds:-

Grounds of Appeal:-

(i) The Judgment and decree of the lower court is contrary to law weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and should have been given an opportunity to the appellant for participating in Trial.

(ii)The lower court erred in dismissing IA.No.377/2023 and

IA.No.378/2023 and decreed the suit exparte against this appellant basing

on the assumptions and presumptions, holding that joint tenancy can be defended by one joint tenant and no need to give any opportunity to this appellant and the appellant has not filed any revision against the said orders.

(iii)The lower court failed to note the fact that the appellant was minor when the suit was instituted and he was represented by guardian and after attaining majority no opportunity was given to the appellant to contest the suit.

(iv)The Trial court failed to take note of the fact that the appellant have independent right to protect his interest by appointing an Advocate and contest the suit.

(v)That the appeal is filed within three period of limitation as the certified copy of the Judgment furnished to the appellant on 17.03.2023 9 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023 and the appeal time expired during the vacation and the appeal is filed on reopening day of the court and within time.

(vi)Thus for these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of final hearing, the appellant prays to set aside the exparte decree and

Judgment dt.17.03.2023 passed by III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,

Secunderabad in OS.No.454/2014 and to dismiss the suit filed by respondent No.1 and to award costs throughout.

11.When the matter was coming for arguments, Heard the arguments of learned counsel for respondents.

12.Now the point for determination is whether the Judgment and

decree dated 17.03.2023 passed by III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil

Court, Secunderabad in OS.No.454/2014 is in accordance with law

and facts of the case or liable to be set aside?

13.POINT:-

The suit is filed before the Trial court for eviction and the plaintiff claimed that he is the landlord and the defendants are tenants. To support the said contention of the plaintiff he relied on his own evidence. Even in the written statement of contesting defendants there is no denial of the jural relationship of plaintiff and defendants. That apart the plaintiff also filed Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 which are the registered sale deed in respect of suit property standing in the name of plaintiff. Besides not challenging the claim of the plaintiff with respect to ownership the defendants also did 10 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023 not challenge by way of pleadings or otherwise his ownership. In fact in

Ex.A4 which is the certified copy of order in CRP.Nos.2148/2012 and 2253/2012 which CRP’s are preferred by defendants herein before the

Hon’ble High Court and claimed the jural relationship between the plaintiff

and defendants and the same is recorded by Hon’ble High Court in the above referred CRPs order under Ex.A4 that the jural relationship is admitted by the defendants (i.e. petitioners in the said CRP). Therefore up until this point we hold that the plaintiff proved that he is the landlord and that the defendants are his tenants.

14.Further contention of PW1 is that he do not want the defendants to continue in the suit property and that therefore he issued eviction notice.

To support the said evidence of PW.1 he relied on Exs.A5 to A17 which are all legal notices, acknowledgments and postal covers. To make it elaborate

Ex.A5 reflects the notice issued by the plaintiff to D1, D2, D3 to D8. Ex.A6 reflects the notice issued to D9 to D11. On perusal of the said notices it appears that the plaintiff has followed the true spirit of Section 106 of

Transfer of Property Act, and issued the notice to vacate the suit property by giving 15 days time from the date of receipt of notice. The ingredients required as per Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is clearly mentioned in Exs.A5 and A6. However there is no dispute on behalf of the contesting defendants about the legality of Exs.A5 and A6. Therefore we hold that 11 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023 plaintiff has proved issuance of termination notice and complied Section 106 Transfer of Property Act, in letter and spirit.

15.To prove that the said notices has been received by the defendants the plaintiff relied on his own evidence and also Exs.A7 to A10 which are acknowledgments of the said notices of D7, D8, D4 and D6. The plaintiff also filed Exs.A11 to A17 which are returned postal covers of D1 to D3, D5,

D10, D9 and D11 as unclaimed. When a notice is returned as unclaimed it is taken to have been served on the party. That apart Section 27 of

General Clauses Act also says that; “Where any act or regulation made after the commencement of this act authorises or requires any document to be served by the post, whether the expression “serve” or either of the expression “give” or “send” or any expression is used then pre-praying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been affected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post”.

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran

Vaidhyan Balan and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3763, it was held that; “Nevertheless the principle incorporated in Section 27 can be profitably by imported in a case where the sender has dispatched the 12 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023 notice by post with the correct address written on it. Then it can be deemed to have been served on the sendee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non-service, any other interpretation leads to tenuous position”.

17.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Chintaman Juker and others

Vs. Kishore Pandurang Mantra and others reported in (2001) 5 SCC

1, it was held that:

“Once it is held that the tenancy was joint, a notice to one of the joint tenants was sufficient, and the suit for same was also good. In our opinion, the notice and frame of suit was proper”.

Therefore, the contention of the defendant No.3 that the termination notice was not sent is not valid as per the above Judgment of Supreme

Court it is deemed to be sent. The defendant No.4 except filing written statement he did not produce any piece of evidence to rebut that the plaintiff evidence and also did not choose to cross examine PW.1.

18.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidhya Dhar Vishnu Pant

Ratnaparkhi Vs. Manikrao Baburao Deshmukh and another,

reported in AIR 1999 SC 1445, it was held that:

“Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross 13 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023 examined by the other side a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.”

19.Admittedly the defendant No.4 did not enter into the witness box to state his own case and does not also offered himself to be cross examined by the plaintiff. Therefore, presumption U/Section 114 of Indian Evidence

Act arises against the defendant No.4 for his failure to enter into the witness box. In fact, the defendants did not choose to cross examine PW.1 to support his pleadings and to disprove the plaintiff case. Therefore, the evidence of plaintiff and the pleadings of the plaint are remained unchallenged.

20.That apart DW.1 who is defendant No.3 in the suit in the cross- examination admitted that “ it is true that myself and my brothers have been claiming tenancy together in respect of suit property”. This admission of DW.1 goes to show that all the defendants are claiming the tenancy of suit property. All the documents under Exs.A5 to A17 which are notices, postal acknowledgments and postal returned covers shows the address of suit property. Here the above referred Hon’ble Supreme Court case law fits squarely i.e. (2001) 5 SCC 1 Ashok Chintaman Juker Vs Kishore Pandurang

Mantra. Under such circumstances when all the defendants are residing in the suit property and as admitted by DW.1 claiming tenancy together then the defence of defendants in their pleadings is false that they did not 14 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023 receive termination notice. In a decision in 2001 (5) SSC 1, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that the notice to one of the joint tenant is sufficient.

In the present case not only that DW.1 admitted he and his brothers are jointly claiming the tenancy in respect of the suit property, but also all the notices, acknowledgments and postal covers from Exs.A5 to A17 shows the same house numbers. In view of the admissions of DW.1 coupled with

Exs.A5 to A17 showing the same numbers proves the fact that all the defendants were served with the notices of termination of tenancy.

21. Even as per Section 27 of General Clauses Act as extracted above, the notices are deemed to have been served on the defendants. Adding to that in the cross-examination of PW.1 it is the same defendants counsel who elicited the fact that “it is true I have issued legal notices twice”.

The court has no other option except to believe the elicited facts in the cross-examination of a witness for the reason that such facts are pulled out from the mouth of the witness by none other than other side counsel. As such it is often said that cross-examination is a double edged weapon. It can act as shield and also sword depending on its usage. It is also often said that cross examination is voice of truth. Since the above fact is elicited by defendants counsel the court has to believe the above fact that the plaintiff has served legal notice to the defendants twice. This proves that the legal notices under Exs.A5 and A6 have been served on the defendants 15 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023 by the plaintiff. Once the legal notices which are given as per Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, and served on the tenants, the tenants do not have any defence left for them except to vacate the suit property. The tenants cannot sit on the suit property taking the ground that it is illegal eviction because the law itself provides a procedure for the landlord to get the tenants vacated. When the plaintiff has followed the due procedure laid down by law the defendants cannot sit over the property and brand the procedure as illegal.

22.As per the pleadings and written statement of D3 at para 6 he only mentioned that jurisdiction is disputed. He did not plead how the jurisdiction of the court is disputed. In the written statement of D4 this jurisdiction issue is not at all pleaded. While in the pleadings of D11 he pleaded that tenancy is Governed by Telangana Rent Control Act and defendant No.11 is statutory tenant and his tenancy cannot be terminated

U/Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. From the above pleadings of the contesting defendant Nos.3, 4 and 11 it shows that they are disputing jurisdiction of the court. Before we dive into the aspect of jurisdiction it is necessary to mention here that the pecuniary jurisdiction of Small Causes

Court comes when the fair rent is below Rs.3,000/-. Whereas in the present case in the cross-examination of DW.1 he himself admitted that as per Ex.A4/CRP.No.2148/2012 and 2253/2012 (common order) the Hon’ble 16 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023

High Court has fixed the fair rent Rs.4,000/- as on the date of petition i.e.

from September 2005 is confirmed subject to periodical increase @10% for every 2 years from September 2005 onwards. Going by this calculation and also by admissions of DW1 the fair rent of the suit property was

Rs.5,324/- as on the date of notice i.e. September, 2014. Further adding to it there is another CRP.No.2422/2023 in which Hon’ble High Court fixed the fair rent as Rs.8,480/- in continuation of CRP.No.2148/2012. That apart in the cross-examination DW.1 categorically admitted the fact that the rent as per the above referred CRP has been enhanced to Rs.5,324/-. Clearly from these admissions and CRP orders the enhanced rent is Rs.5,324/- as per Ex.A4. Hence it is bound by record that the court in which the suit is filed was having pecuniary jurisdiction in entertaining the suit. As such this defence is weak defence and does not stand.

23.The other defences about legality of termination notice is already discussed above.

24.It is pertinent to mention that PW1 has been cross-examined by defendant No.3. Whereas the other contesting defendants i.e. defendant

No.4 and defendant No.11 failed to cross examine DW.1. Even they failed to enter into the witness box to depose their case. As held by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in AIR 1999 SC 1445 “where a party to the suit does not enter into the witness box and state his own case on oath and does not 17 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023 offer himself for cross examination, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is incorrect.” In the present case also since no evidence is adduced by defendant No.4 and defendant No.11 all the defences taken by them are presumed to be false defences. As such for all the discussions made above, we hold that the Trial court has properly decreed the suit and directed the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property.

25.With regard to the quantum of rent as discussed above, it is the admission of DW.1 himself that the rent was fixed at Rs.5,856/- as on the date of notice under Exs.A5 and A6. There is no proper defence placed by the defendants to rebut the evidence of PW1 that the suit property may not fetch Rs.5,856/- per month as on the date of termination of notice. Even otherwise it is Hon’ble High Court order under Ex.A4. If the defendants wants to challenge the Hon’ble High Court order passed in 2014 in Ex.A4 they should have preferred further appeal. No such pleadings or evidence lead by the defendants that they preferred further appeal against Ex.A4. As such the defendants are liable to pay the same according to Hon’ble High

Court as per Ex.A4 from the date of default. With respect to future mesne profits the Trial court has ordered for filing of separate application U/Order

XX Rule 12 CPC which is proper. As such for all the discussion made above we hold that the suit has rightly been decreed by the Trial court and does 18 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023 not requires indulgence of this court. Accordingly point for determination is answered.

26.The respondent filed a case law in (1970) 1 SSC 558, whereas the present case is with respect to rents and DW1 who is aged about 43 years as on the date of examination is well aware of the said fact that the enhanced rent is Rs.5,324/-. The Hon’ble High Court order under Ex.A4 where the rent has been increased @10% every 2 years from 2005 onwards. Therefore irrespective of the admissions of DW1, the defendants cannot deny the Hon’ble High Court order.

27.The respondent has filed another case law in 2001 (5) SCC 1, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed about the definition of the word tenant. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case stated that notice to any one of the tenant is valid and a suit impleading one of them as defendants is maintainable. A decree passed in such a suit is binding on all the tenants. In the present case also where there is clear admission on the part of DW1 that he and all his brothers i.e. all the defendants are claiming joint tenancy then notice to one of the defendants is sufficient.

The above discussion shows that some of the defendants are contesting in the case and the remaining defendants choose to remain exparte. As such in view of the above case law the decree passed by the Trial court is proper.

19 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023

28.The respondent filed another case law in 1999 (3) SCC 573, the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme court in the said case law regarding the party to the suit not entering into the witness box and deposing his case presumed to have set up false defence is squarely applicable to the present case.

29.In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2023 passed by III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,

Secunderabad in OS.No.454/2014 and the appellant shall vacate the suit property within 2 months from the date of this order.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 03rd day of February, 2025.

XII Addl.Chief Judge,

FAC/XXVII Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Corrections carried out

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

- Nil -

XII Addl.Chief Judge, FAC/XXVII Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

20 of 20 AS.No.24 of 2023

Corrections carried out

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD.

Present :Smt. Shoukath Jahan Siddique XII Addl. Chief Judge, FAC I Addl. Chief Judge, Secunderabad.

MONDAY, THIS THE 16th DAY OF JUNE, 2025

M.V.O.P. NO. 314 OF 2021

Between :

1. Smt. Gundu Kanaka Laxmi, W/o. Late. Yellaiah, Aged about: 48 years; Occupation: Housewife,

2.Gundu Raju, S/o. Late. Yellaiah, Age 30 years, Occ: Labour

Native place R/o. H. No. 1-44 Yelkurthi Village, Dharmasagar Mandal, Warangal Dist.

Both are presently R/o H.No. 1-11-349/22, Manikeshwar Nagar, Vaddera Basti, Secunderabad. --Petitioners AND

1.Mr. Tanaji Devkate, S/o. Vaijnath Devkate, Aged : Major, Occupation: Driver R/o. Gonegaon Village, Mukhed TQ, Nanded District, Maharashtra State-431714.

2. Mr. Patil Ramakanth, S/o. P. Shankar Rao, Aged : Major, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.16-217/A, Allwyn Colony, Patancheru Village & Mandal, Medak District-502300.

3.M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Deputy Manager T.P. Claims, Plot No. 1, 2, 3, Sy.No.1, Adjacent to the Hindu Paper Office Opp. To Genpact, IDA Uppal, Hyderabad. --Respondents (Policy No.61370131200100000349 Valid from 06.06.2020 to 17.05.2021) :: 2 of 16 :: MVOP 314/2021

This petition is came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Yadaiah, Advocate for the Petitioners and

Sri M.Madhava Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and

Respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex parte and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following :-

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act, 1983 and

Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989 read with Sec.140 M.V. Act, 1988 by the petitioners seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) against the Respondents jointly and severally alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization of the amount and costs of the petition for the death of G.Yellaiah (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.03.2021.

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

The Petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No. 2 is the son of the deceased. The deceased was as a labour and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month and contributing same to the welfare of his family. On 25.03.2021 at about 06-30 p.m. while the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP- 36-AS-9300 as a rider alongwith pillion rider, from Madikonda

Village towards Yelkurthi Village side, on NH-163 road and when they reached NH-163 outer ring road at Madikonda Village,

Kazipet, Warangal District, suddenly one lorry bearing Reg. No.AP- 27-TY-8269 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed :: 3 of 16 :: MVOP 314/2021 and dashed to deceased vehicle. As a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road and received severe head injury and other grievous internal injuries to all over the body and succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The deceased was aged about 50 years and was hale and healthy at the time of accident.

Due to the sudden death, the petitioners became dismal destitute in their lives. The P.S. Madikonda of Warangal registered a case in

Crime No. 36 of 2021 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and the same is pending. The

Respondent No.1 is the driver, who is working and acting in the course of his employment with the Respondent No.2, the

Respondent No.2 is the Owner of the crime vehicle and the

Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the crime vehicle as such, all the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners. Hence, the petition.

3.The Respondents No.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.

4.The Respondent No.3 filed Counter contending that the material allegations made in the OP are not true and correct and the Petition is not maintainable in law against this Respondent.

The Respondent No. 3 does not admit and denied all the allegations made in the petition. The Respondent further denied that the petitioners are the legal heirs and dependents of Late

G.Yellaiah, who said to have died in an alleged road accident occurred on 25.03.2021. The Respondent company specifically denied for want of confirmation of policy in respect of Lorry bearing No. AP-27-TY-8269 is insured with this respondent

Company vide Policy Cover No. 61370131200100000349, and is :: 4 of 16 :: MVOP 314/2021 valid from 06-06-2020 to 17-05-2021. The Respondent No.3 contended that the said vehicle is not insured with this respondent and there is no existence of the policy as on the date of the alleged accident. It is further submitted that the driver of the Lorry bearing No. AP-27-TY-8269 was not having a valid driving license at the time of the alleged accident. It is further stated that the alleged accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, but not due to the negligence of the driver of the Lorry bearing No. AP-27-TY-8269. It is further stated that in collusion with the petitioners, the Respondents No.1 & 2 have not issued any notice about the alleged accident to it . Hence R3 is at liberty to take all the general defenses, which are available to it under

Sec. 170 (B) of M.V. Act and its subsequent amendments besides the general defenses u/s 147 and 149 of M.V. Act. The

Respondent further stated that owner/respondent No. 2 has not furnished the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of injuries and the name of the driver and particulars of driving license, which is his mandatory duty as per

Sec.134 (C) M.V.Act. It is further stated that as per sec. 158 (6) of

M.V Act, 1988, it is mandatory on the part of the concerned police

Officials to send all the relevant papers to the concerned insurer and the owner of the vehicle within 30 days from the date of information but the concerned Police Officials failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand. The

Petitioners claimed interest 18% p.a., which is highly excessive and same is contrary to Sec.3 of Interest Act, 1978 and the observations of the various judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

It is further stated that the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- claimed by the applicants with interest and costs is more excessive and :: 5 of 16 :: MVOP 314/2021 exorbitant. If this Hon'ble court is awarding compensation the rate of interest may be restrict as per the prevailing bank rate that may be fixed by RBI and as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court & our

Hon'ble high court judgments in the similar cases besides under

the provisions of interest Act. Therefore, R3 prayed to dismiss the above petition against it with costs.

5.Based on the respective pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by my learned predecessor- in-office :-

1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death of the victim viz. G.Yellaiah due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No. AP 27 TY 8269 by its driver?

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

3) To what relief?

6.On behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 herself examined as PW1 and through her, Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked and one Gundu Thirupathi, eye witness to the accident examined as

PW2. On behalf of the Respondent No.3, Assistant Manager of the in its company was examined as RW1 and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are marked.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner filed written arguments alongwith memo of citations. Heard the learned counsel for Respondent No.3.

:: 6 of 16 :: MVOP 314/2021

8. ISSUE NO.1 :- Whether the pleaded accident

occurred resulting in death of the victim viz. G.Yellaiah

due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.

AP 27 TY 8269 by its driver?

To prove this issue, the petitioner pressed into service the evidence of Petitioner No.1. Having relevancy to this issue, PW1 deposed that on 25.03.2021 at about 6-30 p.m. when the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-36-

AS-9300 as a rider alongwith pillion rider, from Madikonda Village towards Yelkurthi Village, on NH-163 road and when he reached

NH-163 outer ring road at Madikonda Village, Kazipet, Warangal

District, suddenly one lorry bearing registration No.AP 27 TY 8269 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to deceased vehicle. As a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road and received severe head injury and other grievous internal injuries to all over the body and succumbed to his injuries on the spot. She further deposed that the P.S. Madikonda of

Warangal registered a case in Crime No.36 of 2021 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and the same is pending. Through PW1, Ex.A1/CC of FIR alongwith the complaint, Ex.A2/Charge Sheet, Ex.A3/Inquest Report, Ex.A4/PME

Report and Ex.A5/CC of MVI Report marked.

9.The petitioner also examined eye witness as PW2. PW2 deposed that on 25.03.2021 at about 6-30 p.m. while himself and

Boda Srinivas were proceeding on motor cycle from Hanmakonda towards Elkathurthy Village and when they reached NH-163 outer ring road at Madikond Village, Kazipet, Warangal District, suddenly one lorry bearing Reg. No.AP 27 TY 8269 came in a rash and :: 7 of 16 :: MVOP 314/2021 negligent manner with high speed and dashed to on Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 36 AS 9300. As a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road and received severe head injury and other grievous internal injuries to all over the body and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Immediately, they rushed to the spot.

Later they came to know that the deceased name was Gundu

Yellaiah and belongs to his village Elkathurthy. He further deposed that the police Madikonda have taken his statement and they have got his signatuers and his named was listed in the charge sheet as LW4 and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing registration No.

AP 27 TY 8269.

10. In this case, the Respondents No.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not choose to contest the case and remained ex parte. The allegations of rash and negligent driving is made by petitioners against Respondent No.1, but he choose to remain ex parte which implies that he is admitting the said allegations of petitioners to be true. The charge under Ex.A2 also reflects that the accident is caused by respondent No.1 and he is charged under Sec.304(A) IPC. The

Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed counter contending that the alleged accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, but not due to the negligence of the driver of the

Lorry bearing No. AP-27-TY-8269 and to substantiate it’s case,

Respondent No.3 examined the Assistant Manager working in it‘s company as RW1 on it’s behalf and got marked Ex.B1/Office copy of Policy and Ex.B2/CC of Driving License of R1 (subject to objection).

:: 8 of 16 :: MVOP 314/2021

11. RW1 in his chief examination deposed that the Respondent

No.3issuedaninsurancepolicybearingNo.

61370131200100000349 for the period from 06.06.2020 to 15.05.2021 in respect of the Lorry bearing No.AP 27 TY 8269 and the said policy was issued under certain terms, conditions and exclusion and the respondent company is not liable to pay any amount to the petitioners under the following grounds : -

The Driver/Respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the alleged accident and the said licence was not in force thereby contravened the provisions of M.V.Act as well as M.V.Rules. Driving the vehicle without driving licence is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy. On the face of the policy, it is clearly mentioned that the vehicle has to be driven by a person holding a valid and effective driving license.

The Respondent No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle had knowingly and willfully committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy and on this count the Respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation.

12. RW1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for petitioners and during the course of his cross examination, RW1 has admitted some facts, which are as follows :-

1. It is true that he is giving evidence basing on the record.

2. It is true that as on the date of accident, the policy was in force and it covers third party risk.

3. It is true that the deceased is the third party to the policy.

4. It is true that the police concerned filed charge sheet against the driver of crime vehicle after through investigation.

:: 9 of 16 :: MVOP 314/2021

5. It is true that the concerned police filed charge sheet under

Sec.304-A of IPC only.

6. It is true that the Respondent No.1 was issued driving license on 01.04.2010 and it is valid till 18.03.2022. The witness adds that it is for non transport vehicle.

7. It is true that as per Ex.A5, the driving license

No.MH2620100004521 mentioned and the driver name as

Tanaji Devkate.

13. Nothing has been spoken to by RW1 with regard to rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased. Furthermore, RW1 has not filed any scrap of paper to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased. On examination of cross- examination of PW1 done by Respondent No.3, it is observed that none of the above said exhibits under Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were challenged by any of the Respondents. They not even touched the above said exhibits in cross-examining the witness on the documents. This gives an implication that the Respondent is admitting the above said documents to be true and correct.

14. That apart, on perusal of Ex.A1/FIR it is observed that the police report filed immediately without delay. On registering the

FIR under Ex.A1, the Police swung into action, did investigation and filed report under Ex.A2/CC of Chare Sheet stating

Respondent No.2 is responsible for the accident and therefore, he is charge sheeted for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC. Neither

Ex.A1 nor Ex.A2 were challenged by Respondent No.3. Instead of challenging Ex.A1 and A2, it is suggested to PW1 that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased and there is :: 10 of 16 :: MVOP 314/2021 no negligence of the driver of the Lorry bearing No. AP 27 TY 8269. If that is the case, why did Respondent No.3 not challenged

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Moreover, it is already elicited by Respondent

No.3 in the cross-examination of PW1 that PW1 is not eye witness to the accident. If she is not eye witness to the accident, why this suggestion is given to PW1 that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased. Admittedly, even Respondent

No.2 was not present at the time of accident. As per Ex.A2/CC of

Charge Sheet, it was Respondent No.1, who caused the accident.

The Respondent No.1 did not choose to contest the case by filing the counter and adducing counter. This itself shows that the defence set up by Respondent No.3 is false. Respondent No.3 cannot protect the offender in the charge sheet only to save their own skin. The charge sheet remained unchallenged by

Respondent No.3 and it reflects that the accident is caused by rash and negligent act of Respondent No.1. Moreover, the MVI

Report under Ex.A5 reflects that the accident did not occur due to mechanical defects in the vehicle. As such, all the above discussion reflects that it is Respondent No.1, who caused the accident by his rash and negligent driving.

15. That apart, even in the cross examination of PW2, it is suggested that PW2 has given any written complaint to police.

This suggestion is given by the Respondent No.3 itself and the witness admitted the suggestion. That means having seen the accident, PW2 has rushed to the PS and gave the complaint.

Moreover, it is elicited in the cross-examination of the PW2 that he is the eye witness to the accident. Though PW2 was subjected to cross-examination at some length, no material of whatsoever elicited either to disbelieve his deposition or to doubt his presence :: 11 of 16 :: MVOP 314/2021 at the place of accident. This evidence of PW2 totally supports the evidence of PW1. Moreover, as per the above discussion, the documents filed by the petitioner also supports the evidence of

PW1 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of

Respondent No.1.

16. PW1 stated that the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The petitioner filed Ex.A4/PME Report to support her contention. This document was also not challenged by

Respondent No.3. On perusal of the said document, it is observed that the post mortem was done on 26.03.2021 at 1.15 pm and it is further mentioned there in that the deceased died 18 to 24 hours prior to post mortem examination. As such, I hold that the petitioners proved the fact that death of the deceased is the direct result of the accident. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

17. ISSUE NO.2 :- Whether the petitioners are entitled

to entitled to any compensation and if so, to what amount

and against whom?

PW1 deposed that she is the wife of the deceased and petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased. The Respondent No.3 has not seriously disputed the said fact except denying in the counter that the petitioners are the legal heirs and dependents on the deceased by adducing any oral or documentary evidence. In

Ex.A2/CC of Charge Sheet and Ex.A3/CC of Inquest Report, the petitioner No.1 is shown as “wife” and petitioner No.2 is shown as “son” of the deceased. Even otherwise, the contesting

Respondent No.3, while cross-examining PW1 at every stage referred the deceased as husband of PW1 which means they are admitting the legal status of petitioners with the deceased. Hence, :: 12 of 16 :: MVOP 314/2021 it can be safely concluded that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased.

18. PW1 deposed that the deceased was aged about 50 years and relied upon Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. In Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 50 years. Here it is pertinent to examine Ex.A4/PME Report, which has been issued by Institution of Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal (Department of Forensic

Medicine). In Ex.A4/PME Report, the doctor, who has conducted the PME has mentioned the approximate age of the deceased as “50 years”. Hence, I hold that the petitioners proved that

the age of the deceased as 50 years as on the date of

accident.

19. PW1 stated that the deceased was working as “labour” and thereby earning a sum of Rs.15,000/-. In her cross-examination,

PW1 admitted that she has not filed documents to show that her deceased husband was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. On perusal of the documents under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, the occupation of the deceased is shown as coolie. However, with respect to earning of

Rs.15,000/- by the deceased as coolie, there is no proof placed by the petitioners except own oral evidence of PW1. As such, the income of the deceased as “coolie” needs to be assessed on conjecture. Hence, this Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased notionally as Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of his death.

:: 13 of 16 :: MVOP 314/2021

20. CALCULATIONS :-

As per the above discussion, the income of the deceased is calculated as Rs.10,000/- per month. Annual Income of the deceased comes to Rs.10,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,20,000/-.

As per the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranaya Sethi and Others

(2017 ACJ 2700), when there are dependents 2, 1/3rd should be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

In the present case also, there are two claimants :-

Rs.1,20,000/- x 1/3rd % = Rs.40,000/-.

Rs.1,20,000/- - Rs.40,000/- = Rs.80,000/-

As per the same case law, when the deceased is in age group of 46-50, multiplier ‘13’ should be taken for calculation of loss of dependency.

Rs.80,000/- x 13 = Rs.10,40,000/- (Loss of dependency)

As per the same case law, 10% of the said amount should be calculated as future prospects, if the deceased is between the age group of 50 to 60 years.

Rs.10,40,000/- x 10% = Rs.1,04,000/- (Future prospects)

21. LIABILITY :-

PW1 stated that Respondent No.1 being driver of the offending vehicle, Respondent No.2 being owner of the offending vehicle and Respondent No.3 being the Insurer of offending vehicle are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. RW1 in his cross examination admitted that as on the date of accident, :: 14 of 16 :: MVOP 314/2021 the policy was in force and it covers third party risk. He further admitted that the deceased is third party to the policy. RW1 further admitted that Respondent No.1 was issued driving license on 01.04.2010 and it is valid til 18.03.2022. A perusal of

Ex.B2/Driving License of Tanaji Devkate/Respondent No.1, it shows that the same has been issued on 19.3.2002 as it’s validity details are “Non-Transport : 19.03.2022 to 18.03.2032 and

Transport : 09.03.2022 to 08.03.2027. Ex.B1/Policy shows that the policy was in force at the time of accident. The deceased is clearly third party to the policy. As such, Respondent No.1 being driver of the offending vehicle, Respondent No.2 being Insured of the offending vehicle and Respondent No.3 being Insurer of the offending vehicle, all becomes jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered.

22. GENERAL AND NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES :-

Under the given circumstances of the case it is just and proper to grant following compensation :-

Loss of EstateRs.15,000/-

Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-

Spousal ConsortiumRs.50,000/-

Parental Consortium of Petitioner No.2Rs. 50,000/-

TOTAL Rs.1,30,000/-

Thus, the petitioners can be awarded Rs.12,74,000/- towards just compensation.

:: 15 of 16 :: MVOP 314/2021 23.ISSUE NO.3 :- To what relief?

In the result, i.the petition is allowed and award is passed granting compensation of Rs.12,74,000/- alongwith costs and accrued interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit with costs.

ii.Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners with accrued interest and costs.

iii.Respondents are directed to deposit the above said compensation with accrued interest and costs within 30 days from the date of this award.

iv.Upon such deposit, the Petitioner No.1 is entitled to

Rs.8,74,000/- alongwith costs and interest and Petitioner

No.2 is entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith costs and interest towards their share and they are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount at once alongwith accrued interest and costs.

v.Decree shall be drawn up on payment of deficit court on

Rs.74,000/- by the petitioners within 10 days from the date of this Award.

vi.Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on 16th day of June, 2025.

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-XII ACJ, CCC,

FAC I ACJ, CCC, SECUNDERABAD.

Corrections carried out :: 16 of 16 :: MVOP 314/2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined.

FOR PETITIONERS:-

PW1 : Smt. Gundu Kanaka Laxmi

PW2 : Gundu Thirupathi

FOR RESPONDENT NO.3:-

RW1 : V.Venkat Prithvi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:-

Ex.A1 -CC of FIR alongwith complaint

Ex.A2 -CC of Charge Sheet

Ex.A3 -CC of Inquest Report

Ex.A4 -CC of PME report

Ex.A5 -CC of MVI Report

FOR RESPONDENT NO.3:-

Ex.B1 - Office copy of Policy

Ex.B2 - CC of Driving License of R1 (subject to objection)

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-XII ACJ, CCC,

FAC I ACJ, CCC, SECUNDERABAD.

Corrections carried out

Fair Copy

IN THE COURT OF XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,

SECUNDERABAD.

Present: Smt. Shoukath Jahan Siddique XII Additional Chief Judge Secunderabad.

TUESDAY, THE 5 th DAY OF MAY, 2026

M.V.O.P.NO.463 OF 2021

Between:

1.Jakkula Shilpa @ Lingoji Shilpa D/o Shivakesh W/o Late Lingoji Shaker Chary @ Shekar, Age: 26 years, Occ: Household.

2.Lingoji Saatvika D/o Late Lingoji Shaker Chary @ Shekar, Age: 5 months, Occ: Nil.

3.Lingoji Venkat Laxmi W/o Lingoji Ravinder Chary @ Ravi, Age: 52 years, Occ: Household.

4.Lingoji Ravinder Chary @ Ravi S/o Lingoji Sudharshan, Age: 55 years, Occ: Goldsmith. All are R/o Toopran, presently R/o 22-32/1, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

... Petitioners

AND

1.Metuku Naresh S/o Shayam, Occ: Rider of TVS No.TS-16EX-7455, R/o 1-108/A, Pedda Walgot, Srikonda, Nizamabad.

2.Abbanaboina Gopi S/o A.Shankaraiah, Occ: Owner of TVS No.TS-16EX-7455, R/o 2-12/1, Pedda Walgot, Srikonda, Nizamabad.

3.TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its Regional Manager, 7-1-6-617/A, Imperial Towers, 6th Floor, Ammerpet, Hyderabad.

... Respondents

This O.P. is coming before me on 11.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri E.Bala Krishna, Counsel for the petitioners, Respondents 1 and 2 set exparte, Sri M.Koti Raja Sekhar, Counsel of Respondent No.3 and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 of 17 MVOP 463 of 2021

J U D G M E N T

This petition is filed by the petitioners against the respondents for claiming compensation of Rs.22,00,000/-.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that on 05.02.2021 at about 18.30 hours, the deceased was proceeding as rider on his Bajaj Platinum

Bike bearing No.TS-16EW-0140 along with pillion rider M.Praveen from

Gangoppula village towards Bheemghal side. At the same time the rider of one TVS XL bearing No.TS-16EX-7455 drove the same in rash and negligent manner came in wrong direction and dashed the deceased vehicle in opposite direction. Due to which, the deceased and pillion rider fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, both are shifted to Sri Krishna Hospital, Nizamabad, for better treatment the deceased was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, Hyderabad on 07.02.2021. While undergoing treatment he succumbed to injuries on 11.02.2021 at 7.15 hours in the said Hospital. PS Pet Bheemghal,

Nizamabad had registered a case in Crime No.20/2021 U/s.304-A IPC.

The deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 32 years, running

Bhavani Men’s Wear business at Nizamabad, on which he used to earn

Rs.30,000/- per month and used to contribute the same entirely on his family. Due to the said accident, petitioners become destitute due to the sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners became destitute and lost their income source. Respondent No.1 is rider, 3 of 17 MVOP 463 of 2021

Respondent No.2 is owner and Respondent No.3 is Insurer of the crime vehicle. As such, all the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

3.Respondents 1 and 2 who are the rider and owner of the crime vehicle were set ex parte and remained ex parte.

4.Respondent No.3/Insurance company filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and contended that the accident took place on 05.02.2021 whereas the complaint was lodged on 09.02.2021. the petitioners in collusion with respondent No.2 have given a false complaint to the Police in order get wrongful gains from this respondent. The rider of the crime vehicle was not holding driving license to drive the said Motor vehicle. The alleged accident took place due to sole negligence of the deceased who drove the Motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of alcohol and completely came towards wrong side and the alleged accident took place in opposite direction. This respondent issued insurance policy in favour of respondent No.2 for the period from 20.02.2020 to 19.02.2025. This respondent seeks protection U/s.147 and 149 of M.V.Act. As per section 134 [C] of M.V. 1988, it is the mandatory duty of the insured/respondent No.2 herein to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of injured, but the insured/respondent No.2 herein has not complied with statutory demand.

4 of 17 MVOP 463 of 2021

As per Section 158[6] of M.V. Act, 1988, it is a mandatory duty of the concerned Police station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of the information, but the

Police failed to the same. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, following issues are framed for trial:-

1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, If so, to what quantum and from whom?

3.To what relief?

6.To prove their respective contentions, petitioners got examined

PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondents,

RW1 was examined and got marked Ex.B1 policy copy.

7.After conclusion of trial, arguments of both sides heard and written arguments also filed.

8.ISSUE NO.1:- Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1?

To prove this issue, petitioner No.1 pressed into service her evidence as PW1. Having relevancy to this issue, PW1 deposed that on 5 of 17 MVOP 463 of 2021 05.02.2021 at 18.30 hours, her deceased husband was proceeding as a rider on Bajaj Platinum Bike bearing No.TS-16EW-0140 along with pillion rider M.Praveen from Gangoppula village towards Bheemghal side. At that time, the driver of TVS XL bearing No.TS-16EX-7455 drove the same in rash and negligent manner, came in wrong direction and dashed the deceased proceeding vehicle in opposite direction. Due to which the deceased and the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident both were shifted to

Sri Krishna Hospital, Nizamabad and for better treatment husband of

PW1 was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta. That while undergoing treatment he succumbed to injuries on 11.02.2021. That PS Pet

Bheemghal, Nizambad registered a case in Crime No.20/2021 U/s.304-

A IPC. To support the said evidence of PW1, the petitioner got marked

Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR along with complaint, Ex.A2 certified copy of charge-sheet, Ex.A3 certified copy of Inquest report and Ex.A4 certified copy of PME report.

9.The petitioner also examined PW2, who said to be eye witness.

PW2 deposed on 05.02.2021 at 18.30 hours, he stood at New Rice Mill,

Gangoppula village, at that time the deceased was proceeding as a rider on Bajaj Platinum Bike bearing No.TS-16EW-0140 along with pillion rider M.Praveen from Gangoppula village towards Bheemghal side. At that time, the driver of TVS XL bearing No.TS-16EX-7455 drove 6 of 17 MVOP 463 of 2021 the same in rash and negligent manner, came in wrong direction and dashed the deceased vehicle in opposite direction. Due to which, the deceased and the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries.

Immediately after the accident, himself along with others shifted them to Sri Krishna Hospital, Nizamabad and for better treatment the deceased was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, while undergoing treatment he succumbed to injuries. The Police Bheemgal, Nizamabad examined him and recorded his statement.

10.Respondents 1 and 2 who are driver and owner of the crime vehicle were set ex parte and remained ex parte. The main allegations of rash and negligent driving is against respondent No.1 and he choose to remain ex parte which implies that he is admitting the allegations of the petitioner against him that he was rash and negligent in driving the crime vehicle on the alleged date.

11.The respondent No.3 lead oral evidence and examined RW1. RW1 deposed that respondent No.3 had issued a policy for the crime vehicle for the period from 20.02.2020 to 19.02.2021 and was in force as on the date of alleged accident. That accident took place on 05.02.2021 whereas the complainant was lodged on 09.02.2021. the reason for delay was not convincible. The crime vehicle rider did not possess driving license at the time of accident. The accident took place due to sole negligence on the part of the deceased only who 7 of 17 MVOP 463 of 2021 rode the Motorcycle under the influence of Alcohol. The rider of the

Motorcycle did not wear proper headgear Helmet at the material time of accident. The petitioners failed to make the owner and insurer of the Motorcycle as parties to the proceedings, a such, the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Respondent No.3 prays to dismiss the petition against him. RW1 got marked Ex.B1 insurance policy.

12.PW1 was cross-examined by respondent No.3. But surprisingly the documents got marked by the petitioner were never challenged by the respondents in the cross-examination of PW1, which simply means that they are admitting the said documents to be true and correct.

Even otherwise, when the Court perused the documents it is observed that the FIR under Ex.A1 was lodged on the same date. The Police on lodging the FIR swung into action, did investigation and filed charge- sheet under Ex.A2. In the investigation under Ex.A2 the Police found that respondent No.1 was guilty of rash and negligent driving and he was charged with offence U/s.304-A, 337 IPC and Section 181, 196

M.V.Act. These documents were remained unchallenged by all the respondents. Simply suggestions were given to PW1 that accident did not occur due to negligence of respondent No.1 which suggestions were denied by PW1. Suggestions cannot take the place of evidence unless suggested fact is proved. In this case RW1 has taken the 8 of 17 MVOP 463 of 2021 defence that the deceased was not wearing the Helmet and therefore he contributed to the accident. If that is the case, the respondent No.3 should have challenged the charge-sheet got marked by the petitioner under Ex.A2. This document was left unchallenged by respondent

No.3. However, not wearing the Helmet is not the crime but driving a vehicle recklessly on the public road endagering human life is a crime.

So the respondent cannot hide under the garb that the deceased was not wearing the Helmet. By not wearing the Helmet he only risked his life but he did not commit any crime. Whereas, respondent No.1 by his rash and negligent driving has taken the life of one person and committed a crime.

13.However, it is seen from the record that respondent No.1 was also accused of committing an offence U/s.181 and 196 of M.V.Act.

Section 181 is driving without license and Section 196 is driving uninsured vehicle. Both these offences might have breached the terms of contract of Insurance. But here the deceased do not have any role to play between the Insured and Insurer who are bound by contract of insurance. If respondent No.3 says that respondent No.1 has driven his vehicle without license, it is for respondent No.3 to take steps against respondent No.1 or respondent No.2 for committing breach of terms of conditions of contract of Insurance. The victim has lost his life because of the negligence of respondent No.1. At the most pay and recovery 9 of 17 MVOP 463 of 2021 can be ordered against respondent No.3, but he cannot be totally exonerated from liability. The other defence is that the charge-sheet contains Section 196 of MV Act i.e. driving the vehicle without insurance. But here respondent No.3 himself has filed Ex.B1 and also admitted in the cross-examination of RW1 that the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Therefore, even this defence does not stand in favour of respondent No.3. However, with respect to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, he is accused of committing an offence U/s.304-A IPC and the charge-sheet under Ex.A2 was never challenged by respondent No.3.

14.In the cross-examination of PW2, it was elicited by respondent

No.3 that deceased and PW2 do not belong to the same village. That means, PW2 is not a request witness of petitioners. Again it is the respondent who elicited the fact that Police examined him at the

Hospital, which means he was present at the Hospital when the victim was admitted in the Hospital. His chief-examination supports the evidence of PW1 with respect to witnessing the accident. Hence, we hold that the petitioners proved the fact that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.

15.In the cross-examination of PW1 it was elicited by respondent

No.3 that PW1 has not filed his own driving license and TVS vehicle documents. It appears that respondent No.3 is more interested in the 10 of 17 MVOP 463 of 2021 degree of care and caution observed by PW1 in driving his own vehicle rather than ghastly act committed by respondent No.1 by rash and negligent driving which lead to the loss of a life. In fact, it is suggested to PW1 that they have given false complaint against the crime vehicle for wrongful gain. From this suggestion it is ample clear that by hook or crook the respondent No.3 wants to escape from the liability by throwing the burden on PW1 by alleging rash driving against the deceased. It is also suggested to her that the deceased was not wearing Helmet. Respondent No.3 cannot be so selfish to throw the burden on the deceased for the accident instead of screening the offender i.e. respondent No.1. In fact, respondent No.3 should be more of a dutiful citizen to help the Court in getting the offender before the

Court for having committed crime. Even otherwise, the investigation under Ex.A2 shows that respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the crime vehicle and is charged with offences U/s.304-A and 337 IPC. When this document is left unchallenged by respondent No.3, he cannot given suggestions to PW1 that her husband was reckless in driving his vehicle. Respondents 1 and 2 also cross-examined PW2, but all their cross-examination is only by way of suggestions and as discussed above suggestions will not prove any point. Hence, we hold that the petitioner proved the fact that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.

11 of 17 MVOP 463 of 2021

16.The petitioner stated that her husband died while he was taking treatment in NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta on 11.02.2021. To support her said evidence, the petitioner filed Exs.A3 and A4 i.e. inquest and PME.

Both the said documents remained unchallenged. On perusal of the said documents, it is observed that the deceased was immediately admitted in the Hospital for treatment after the accident and he succumbed to injuries on 11.02.2021. As such, by filing Exs.A3 and A4, the petitioners proved the fact that the death of the deceased is the direct result of the accident. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

17.ISSUE NO.2:- Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what quantum and from whom?

PW1 stated that deceased is her husband, petitioner No.2 is minor daughter and petitioners 3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased. Respondents 1 and 2 did not object for this statement of

PW1. But however, respondent No.3 in the written statement raised objection questioning the legal status of the petitioners with the deceased. The same respondent who raised the objection in the cross- examination of PW1 has elicited the fact by referring that the deceased is husband of PW1. This elicited fact proves the legal status of the petitioners with the deceased.

12 of 17 MVOP 463 of 2021

18.As per the evidence of PW1 they have spent huge amounts on the medical expenditure of the deceased while he was undergoing treatment. To support the said evidence of PW1, they filed Ex.A5. It is surprising to note that in the cross-examination of PW1 this Ex.A5 totally remained unchallenged which means they are admitting the said document to be true and correct. On perusal of Ex.A5, it shows that during the treatment of the deceased they have spent

Rs.36,794/- in medical expenditure of the deceased. As such, we hold that petitioners are entitled for the medical expenditure of

Rs.36,794/- spent by them on the deceased during his medical treatment in the Hospital.

19.As per the evidence of PW1, the deceased was aged about 32 years. In the counter respondent No.3 raised objection regarding the age of the deceased, but did not file any oral or documentary evidence. A suggestion is given by respondent No.3 to PW1 that the deceased is more than 40 years at the time of accident. But it is not specifically suggested how much more was the age of the deceased at the time of accident. Hence, the above vague suggestion given by respondent No.3 to PW1 gives inference that the said defence is a formal one. Even otherwise, the document filed by the petitioner under Ex.A1 which FIR along with the complaint reflects the age of the deceased as 32 years. This complaint under Ex.A1 was given by the 13 of 17 MVOP 463 of 2021 petitioners much prior to filing of this MVOP. Adding to that the PME report under Ex.A4 also reflects the age of the deceased as 32 years.

There is no better evidence than medical evidence. As such, we hold that petitioners proved the age of the deceased as 32 years.

20.PW1 stated that the deceased was running business of Bhavani

Men’s Wear at Nizamabad and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. To support the said evidence, the petitioner got marked Ex.A6 which are the photos of the shop. In the cross-examination of PW1 with respect to avocation and income, it is elicited that they have not filed documentary proof of the business and simply filed Ex.A6 photos.

Phots cannot be proof of ownership of a shop. Photos can be taken by anybody while they are present in any one’s shop. However, owing to the age of the deceased i.e. 32 years it is generally assumed that a person in the said age group will not sit idle at home especially when he is having a family to look after. As such, since no proof of avocation and income is filed, Notional Income of a minimum wage labour is fixed as Rs.12,000/- per month as income of the deceased. The annual Income of the deceased comes to Rs.12,000 x 12 = 1,44,000/-.

21. As per the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranaya Sethi and Others

14 of 17 MVOP 463 of 2021 reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, When there are 4 dependents 1/4th of his income should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Therefore, after 1/4th of the deductions in annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,08,000/- i.e. (1,44,000 – 36,000 =

Rs.1,08,000/-).

22.In the case ofP.Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 the Hon’ble Apex Court fixed the multiplier of the persons in between the age group of 31 to 35 years as ‘16’. In the present case, the deceased is aged about 32 years, so the multiplier ‘16’ should be taken for calculation of compensation.

Loss of Dependency:- Yearly income of the deceased x multiplier 16 which comes to Rs.1,08,000 x 16 = Rs.17,28,000/-.

23.Future prospects:- As per the same case law 40% of the said amount should be calculated as future prospects for the persons below the age of 40 years i.e., 17,28,000 x 40% = Rs.6,91,200/-.

24.General and Non-Pecuniary Damages:- Under the given circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to grant following compensation:- 15 of 17 MVOP 463 of 2021

Loss of Estate Rs.15000/-

Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-

Loss of consortium Rs.50,000/-

Filial consortium Rs.50,000/- to petitioner No.2

Parental consortium Rs.50,000/- each to petitioners 3 and 4

Total Rs.2,30,000/-

In view of my aforesaid discussion, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.26,85,994/- i.e., (Rs.17,28,000 + 36,794 + 6,91,200 + 2,30,000 = Rs.26,85,994/-).

25.Liability:-Issue No.1 is answered fixing the liability on

Respondent No.1/driver of the crime vehicle and consequently,

Respondent No.2 who is the owner of the crime vehicle. Respondent

No.3, who is Insurer of the crime vehicle becomes vicariously liable for the acts of Respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 who is the insurer of the crime vehicle is also liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for the reason that the crime vehicle was insured with them and they got marked the policy copy under Ex.B1. Ex.B1 shows that the policy was in force as on the date of accident and the deceased is clearly third party. As per the terms and conditions of the policy when the insurance company has collected premium covering the risk of accident under their own policy, respondent No.3/Insurance company also becomes jointly and severally liable along with respondent Nos.

16 of 17 MVOP 463 of 2021 1 and 2 to pay compensation to the petitioners. Therefore,

Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

26.ISSUE NO.3:- In the result, the petition is allowed and award is passed by granting compensation of Rs.26,85,994 /- along with costs and accrued interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit with costs as follows:-

(i) Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners with accrued interest and costs.

(ii) Respondents are directed to deposit the above said compensation with accrued interest and costs within 30 days from the date of this award.

(iii) Upon such deposit, petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.8,85,994/-,

Petitioners 3 and 4 are entitled for Rs.4,00,000/- each towards their share and they are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount falling to their share at once with accrued interest and costs.

(iv) Petitioner No.2 is entitled for Rs.10,00,000/- towards her share and the same is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalised

Bank till she attains the age of majority.

(v) Pay and Recovery is ordered against Respondent No.3.

17 of 17 MVOP 463 of 2021

(vi) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.20,000/-. Deficit Court fee if any shall be paid within 10 days from the date of this award, then office is directed to prepare the award forthwith.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th day of May, 2026.

XII Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS:

PW1 : J.Shilpa @ L.Shilpa RW1 : N.Praveen Reddy

PW2 : K.Naresh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS :

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of FIR with complaint

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of charge-sheet

Ex.A3 : Certified copy of Inquest report

Ex.A4 : Certified copy of PME Report.

Ex.A5 : Original medical bills for Rs.36,794/-

Ex.A6 : Shop photos

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1 : True copy of Insurance Policy

XII Addl.Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

Corrections carried out.

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD.

Present :Smt. Shoukath Jahan Siddique MACT-cum-XII Addl. Chief Judge, FAC MACT-cum-I Addl. Chief Judge, Secunderabad.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 30 th DAY OF JULY, 2025

M.V.O.P. NO. 520 OF 2020

Between :-

1.Smt. Koninti Suvarna, W/o. Late Koninti Ashok Kumar, Aged about : 39 years; Occupation: Household;

2. Mast. K. Prachetan Kumar, S/o. Late K. Ashok Kumar, Aged about : 07 years, Occupation : Student;

3. Mast. K. Prasujan Kumar, S/o. Late K. Ashok Kumar, Aged about : 05 years, Occupation: Student;] (Petitioners No. 2 & 3 are being minors, Rep. by their Mother and Natural Guardian, Smt. Koninti Suvarna, W/o Late Koninti Ashok Kumar i.e., Petitioner No.1)

4. Smt. Koninti Lakshamma @ Lakshmamma, W/o Koninti Mogulappa, Aged about : 68 years, Occupation: Nil;

5. Koninti Mogulappa, S/o Late Koninti Sayappa, Aged about : 77 years, Occupation : Nil;

All are presently residing at H.No.12-11-591/42, Warasiguda, Secunderabad-61. --Petitioners AND

1. Mr. Shaik Shoukat S/o Shaik Ismail, Aged about: Major, Occ : Lorry Driver H.No.1-4-84, Indiranagar, Tandur, Vikarabad District, Telangana-501141. (Driver of the Crime Vehicle) :: 2 of 14 :: MVOP 520 OF 2020

2. Mr. Nazeer Ahmed, S/o Shaik Chand, Aged about : Major, Occ: Business, H.No.2-1-47, Saipur, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana -501141. (Owner of the Crime Vehicle)

3. M/s. Bajaj Allianz General insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Regional Manager, Legal Cell, 4th floor, North East Plaza, Opp. RTA Office, Beside BMW Showroom, Erramanzil Circle, Hyd – 500004. --Respondents (Policy No. OG-19-1529-1803-00030576 Valid from 04.01.2019 to 03.01.2020)

This petition came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri E.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and Respondents No.1 and 2 were set exparte and Sri G.Raj

Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following :-

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act, 1988 and Rule 475 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989 read with Sec. 140 MV Act, 1988 by the petitioners seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees

Twenty Five Lakhs Only) against the Respondents jointly and severally along with costs interest @ 18% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization for the death of Koninti

Ashok Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”, in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 31.12.2019.

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

The Petitioner No.1 is the wife, the Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the minor sons and the Petitioners No. 4 and 5 are the parents :: 3 of 14 :: MVOP 520 OF 2020 of the deceased. At the time of accident the deceased was working as Photographer and running Photo studio in the name and style of “Sri Sai Photo Studio” at Basheerabad and also he used to working as “Ration Dealer” at Basheerabad and thereby used to earn an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month, which he was contributing to the welfare of his family consisting of all the

Petitioners, who are purely depend upon his income. That on 31.12.2019 at about 08:30.p.m., while the deceased was proceeding on Scooty from Saipur, Tulasinagar towards Shivaji

Chowk alongwith his friend as a rider and when they reached

Indra Chowk at Tandur Mandal, Vikarabad District, suddenly, the driver of Lorry bearing No. TS 06 UA 8109 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed to the deceased vehicle from backside. Due to which, the deceased fell down on the road and lorry tire ran over the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased received severe bleeding injuries and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The deceased was hale, healthy and aged about 45 years at the time of accident. The deceased was the only breadwinner of their family and the petitioners do not have any other source of income to maintain themselves. The P.S.

Tandur registered a case in Crime No.301 of 2019 under Section 304(A) of IPC against the driver of the Crime Vehicle and the same is pending. The Respondent No.1 is the Driver of the Crime Vehicle and the Respondent No.2 is the Owner of the Crime Vehicle and the Respondent No.3 is the Insurer of the Crime vehicle as such, all the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners. Hence, the petition.

3.Respondents 1 and 2 were set exparte.

:: 4 of 14 :: MVOP 520 OF 2020

4.The Respondent No.3 filed it’s counter contending that all the material allegations made in the above petition are false and the petition is not maintainable either on facts are in law against the Respondent. The respondent denied that the petitioners are the sole legal heirs and dependents of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the alleged accident and further was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license and further has not satisfied the requirements of the Rule No.3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The respondent No.2 willfully and knowingly has handed over the possession of the vehicle to the said driver, who had not possessed any driving license as on the date of accident and therefore, has contravened the provision of the M.V. Act and the

Rules framed thereunder. Hence, the respondent No.2 is alone liable to pay the compensation if any to the claim petitioners and the respondent company has no liability to pay any compensation to the claim petitioner. The respondent seeks protection under the section 147 and 149 of M.V Act. As per section 134 (C) of M.V.

Act 1988, it mandatory duty of the owner respondent to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of deceased and the name of the driver and particulars of the driving license but, the owner/respondent has not complied with statutory demand. Hence the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and the case is liable to be dismissed against the respondent for non-compliance of statutory demand. As per

Sec.158(6) of M.V.Act, 1988, it is a mandatory duty of the concerned Police station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of the :: 5 of 14 :: MVOP 520 OF 2020 information but the Tandur Tn police station failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand. The owner-respondent used and plied the vehicle on the road without valid permit and fitness of the vehicle which is clear violation of

M.V. Rules, as such the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The Petitioners claimed interest 18% which in highly excessive and same is contrary to

Sec.3 of Interest Act, 1978 and the observations of the various judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The claim petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on non pecuniary loss/expenses al per the judgment reported in ACI 1995 (1) page No:366. The

Petitioners are not entitled to claim any interest on non-pecuniary damages as per the observations of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex

Court. The respondent denied that the vehicle bearing No. TS-06-

UA-8109 was involved in the alleged accident and it was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The respondent is not aware and denies for want of knowledge that the deceased was aged about 45 years and used to earn a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as a

Photographer & Ration Dealer. The respondent denied the manner in which the alleged accident said to have occurred and registration of crime No.301/2019 U/s. 304(A) of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased died on the spot due to injuries including head injury and the deceased was driving the

Scooty/motorcycle bearing No. T/R without wearing the head gear/helmet which is mandatory as per the provisions of M.V.Act.

The deceased rider of Scooty/motorcycle bearing No.T/R did not take proper precautions and violated the terms and conditions of

M.V.Act as such he had contributed to the alleged accident. Hence the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to :: 6 of 14 :: MVOP 520 OF 2020 the petitioners. The Respondent Company stated that as per the available source of information the alleged accident occurred was not at all intimated by the petitioners within stipulated time and there was delay in reporting the matter even though the distance between the concerned police station and the scene of accident is very much considerable, and that the involvement of the vehicle in question in the alleged accident is suspicious and not at all a genuine one. The petitioners might have foisted the present case against the respondent insurance company to get unlawful gain with the aid of the other respondents and the concerned authorities and if the alleged accident is really happened the complaint might be lodged within time immediately after the occurrence of alleged accident, unless and until the involvement of the alleged vehicle is proved by the petitioner in the alleged accident, the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The amount of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest and costs claimed by the petitioners in the petition is more excessive exorbitant and exaggerated and the petitioner is not entitled for the same from the respondent and the Respondent prayed to dismiss the petition against the Respondent No.3 with costs else, the respondent company will be put to irreparable loss and injury.

5.Based on the respective pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by my learned predecessor- in-office :-

1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death to the victim viz., K.Ashok Kumar, due to rash and negligent driving of the the driver of Lorry :: 7 of 14 :: MVOP 520 OF 2020 bearing No.TS 06 UA 8109 ?

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

3) To what relief?

6.On behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. On behalf of Respondent

No.3, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B1 marked.

7.The learned counsel for petitioners filed written arguments.

Heard the learned counsel for Respondent No.3.

8. ISSUE NO.1 :- Whether the pleaded accident occurred

resulting in death to the victim viz., K.Ashok Kumar, due to

rash and negligent driving of the the driver of Lorry

bearing No.TS 06 UA 8109 ?

The petitioner No.1, who is the wife of the deceased herself examined as PW1 and in her chief-examination affidavit, she reiterated the contents of the petition. Through her Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked. Ex.A1 is the CC of FIR with complaint, Ex.A2 is the

CC of the Inquest Report, Ex.A3 is the CC of P.M.E Report, Ex.A4 is the CC of Charge Sheet, Ex.A5 is the CC of Crime Details form alongwoth Rough sketch and Ex.A6 is the CC of MVI. Among

Ex.A1 to Ex.A6, Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are relevant to decide this issue.

9.PW1 in her cross-examination stated that the pillion rider of the motor cycle intimated about the accident on phone. That means, PW1 has not seen the accident. Therefore, her evidence is :: 8 of 14 :: MVOP 520 OF 2020 not much helpful to fasten the liability of rash or negligent act/driving on the part of the Respondent No.1/Driver.

10.To support their case, the petitioners also examined

PW2/Kurva Venkatesham, who is said to be the eye witness to the accident. PW2 in his chief examination deposed that on 31.12.2021 at about 8:30 PM while he was standing at tea stall at

Indira Chowk and drinking tea in the mean while, he observed that two male persons were proceeding on scooty from Saipur towards

Shivaji Chowk side and when they reached near Indira Chowk at

Tandur, suddenly the driver of Lorry bearing No. TS-06-UA-8109 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the scooty from back side. Due to which, the deceased fell down on the road and lorry tire ran over the deceased and he received severe injuries and succumbed to his injuries on the spot. He further deposed that the Police Tandur was examined him and recorded his statement and name was listed in the charge sheet as LW-6 as "eye witness". He further deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing No.TS 06 UA 8109 only.

11.PW2 was subjected to cross-examination at some length, but the learned counsel for Respondent No.3 could not succeed in eliciting any material either to doubt his presence at the place of accident or to discredit his veracity. That apart Ex.A4/Charge

Sheet reflects that Respondent No.1 is accused fo rash and negligent driving and he is charge sheeted for the offence under

Sec. 304-A IPC. This Ex.A4 left unchallenged by Respondent No.3 also.

:: 9 of 14 :: MVOP 520 OF 2020

13.In this case, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, who are respondents 1 and 2 choose to remain ex parte. All the above allegations of rash and negligent driving is against crime vehicle’s driver i.e. Respondent No.1. But he choose to remain ex parte, that means he is admitting the said allegations.

14.Respondent No.3 except confining it’s defence to the pleadings in the mode of counter, did not choose to enter into witness box to substantiate such defence. In the absence of evidence any amount of pleadings do not have any significance to consider. Thus, the Respondents No.1 to 3 failed to place any evidence to rebutt the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and

Ex.A4/Charge Sheet.

14.On perusal of Ex.A4/Charge Sheet filed by the Police after due investigation reveals that the Respondent No.1 is accused of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Lorry bearing No. TS-06-UA-8109. Respondent No.1 is accused of offence under Sec.304-A. Ex.A4 remained unchallenged by

Respondent No.3. Hence, we hold that the petitioners proved rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

15. ISSUE NO.2 :- Whether the petitioners are entitled to

any compensation and if so, what amount and from whom?

It is the contention of the petitioners that the Petitioner No.1 is the wife, the Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the minor sons and the

Petitioners No.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. As such, they are entitled to claim and receive compensation for the death of the deceased. Perusal of Ex.A4/CC of Charge Sheet reveal that :: 10 of 14 :: MVOP 520 OF 2020 the 1st Petitioner is shown as wife and Petitioner No.5 is shown as father of the deceased. The petitioners No.2 and 3 are minors and represented by their natural mother and guardian, who is petitioner No.1 and wife of the deceased. Regarding petitioner

No.4, the petitioner No.4 is shown as wife of the Petitioner No.5, who is established as father of the deceased. Except contending that the petitioners have not filed any documents that they are legal heirs of the deceased-K.Ashok Kumar, the Respondent No.3 has not placed any document to prove it’s contention. It is indeed, filing of family member certificate/legal heir certificate is not a condition precedent to show that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased. Thus, the petitioners being the wife, minor children and parents of the deceased are entitled to claim and receive compensation being his dependents.

16.PW1 deposed that the age of her deceased husband was 45 years as on the date of accident. In Ex.A3/CC of PME Report, the age of the deceased is shown as 45 years. In Ex.A1/CC of FIR,

Ex.A2/CC of Inquest Report, Ex.A4/CC of Charge Sheet also the age of the deceased shown as 45 years. Thus, the petitioners proved the age of the deceased as on the date of accident is 45 years. As such we hold that the age of the deceased is 45 years as on the date of accident.

17.PW1 stated that the deceased was working as Photographer and running Photo studio in the name and style of “Sri Sai Photo

Studio” at Basheerabad and also he used to working as “Ration

Dealer” at Basheerabad and thereby used to earn an amount of

Rs.25,000/- per month. In her cross-examination, PW1 stated that she has not filed any proof of income that her husband used to :: 11 of 14 :: MVOP 520 OF 2020 earn Rs.25,000/- per month as a photographer and ration dealer.

So, there is no oral or documentary evidence on record to establish that the deceased was Photographer and running Photo studio and also working as “Ration Dealer” at Basheerabad and getting income to a tune of Rs.25,000/- per month. Hence, in the absence of any evidence, this Tribunal is inclined to assess the income of the deceased notionally as Rs.15,000/- per month.

20. CALCULATIONS :-

As per the above discussion, the income of the deceased is calculated as Rs.15,000/- per month. Annual Income of the deceased comes to Rs.15,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,80,000/-.

As per the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranaya Sethi and Others

(2017 ACJ 2700), when there are 4 to 6 dependents, 1/4th should be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. In the present case also, there are 5 claimants :-

Rs.1,80,000/- x 1/4th = Rs.45,000/-.

Rs.1,80,000/- - Rs.45,000/- = Rs.1,35,000/-

As per the same case law, when the deceased is in age group of 41-45 years, multiplier ‘14’ should be taken for calculation of loss of dependency.

Rs.1,35,000/- x 14 = Rs.18,90,000/- (Loss of dependency)

As per the same case law, 25% of the said amount should be calculated as future prospects, if the deceased’s age is above 40 years.

Rs.18,90,000/- x 25% = Rs.4,72,500/- (Future prospects)

:: 12 of 14 :: MVOP 520 OF 2020

21. GENERAL AND NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES :-

Under the given circumstances of the case it is just and proper to grant following compensation :-

Loss of EstateRs.15,000/-

Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-

Spousal ConsortiumRs.50,000/-

Parental Consortium of Rs.50,000/-Rs. 1,00,000/- each to Petitioners No.2 and 3

Filial Consortium of Rs.50,000/- eachRs. 1,00,000/- to Petitioners No.4 and 5

TOTAL Rs.2,80,000/-

Thus, the petitioners can be awarded Rs.26,42,500/- towards just compensation.

22. LIABILITY :-

Admittedly, the Respondents No.1 and 2 are the driver and owner of the crime vehicle and Respondent No.3 is insurer of the crime vehicle. The Respondent No.3 itself filed Ex.B1/Policy, which shows that the policy was in force at the time of accident. The deceased is clearly third party to the policy. As such, Respondent

No.1 being driver of the vehicle, Respondent No.2 being Insured of the crime vehicle and Respondent No.3 being Insurer of the crime vehicle, all becomes jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered.

23.ISSUE NO.3 :- To what relief?

In the result, the petition is allowed and award is passed by granting compensation of Rs.26,42,500/- alongwith costs and :: 13 of 14 :: MVOP 520 OF 2020 accrued interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit with costs as follows :- i.Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners with accrued interest and costs.

ii.Respondents are directed to deposit the above said compensation with accrued interest and costs within 30 days from the date of this award.

iii.Upon such deposit, the Petitioner No.1 is entitled to

Rs.10,42,500/- alongwith costs and interest, the Petitioners

No.2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- each alongwith costs and interest towards their share and the Petitioners

No.4 and 5 are entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- each alongwith costs and interest towards their share.

iv.The petitioners No.1, 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their entire share of compensation amount at once alongwith accrued interest and costs. The share amount of compensation of petitioners No.2 and 3 shall be kept in FDRs in their names in any nationalized till they attain majority.

v.Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

vi.Decree shall be drawn up on payment of deficit court fee on

Rs.1,42,500/- within 10 days from the date of this Award.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on 30th day of July, 2025.

SD/-

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-XII ACJ, CCC,

FAC MACT-CUM-I ACJ, CCC,

SECUNDERABAD.

:: 14 of 14 :: MVOP 520 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined.

FOR PETITIONERS:-

PW.1 : Smt. Koninti Suvarna

PW.2 : Kurva Venkatesham

FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2:-

Ex parte

FOR RESPONDENT NO.3:-

- None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:-

Ex.A1 -CC of FIR along with complaint

Ex.A2 -CC of Inquest Report

Ex.A3 -CC of PME report

Ex.A4 -CC of Charge sheet

Ex.A5 -CC of MVI report

FOR RESPONDENT NO.3:-

Ex.B1 -Attested copy of policy

SD/-

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-XII ACJ, CCC,

FAC MACT-CUM-I ACJ, CCC,

SECUNDERABAD.

Fair Copy

IN THE COURT OF XII ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,

SECUNDERABAD.

Present: Smt. Shoukath Jahan Siddique XII Additional Chief Judge Secunderabad.

MONDAY, THE 4 th DAY OF MAY, 2026

M.V.O.P.NO.396 OF 2021

Between:

1.Daravath Neelamma W/o Late D.Ramji Nayak, Age: 53 years, Occ: Household.

2.Daravath Ravi Naik S/o Late D.Ramji Nayak, Age: 36 years, Occ: Unemployee.

3.Bukya Shanthi D/o Late D.Ramji Nayak, Age: 35 years, Occ: Household.

4.Daravath Veerender Nayak S/o Late D.Ramji Nayak, Age: 27 years, Occ: Unemployee. All are R/o H.No.4-2/101, Mettiguda, Secunderabad.

... Petitioners

AND

1.Neerati Raju, Occ: Driver

2.Ravinder Polagouni S/o P.Laxmaiah, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.6-2-P, Balaji Nagar, Jangaon, Telangana 506167

3.M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its General manager, White House, Begumpet, Hyderabad Telangana

... Respondents

This O.P is coming before me on 11.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Srinivas, Counsel for petitioners, Respondents 1 & 2 are set exparte and remained exparte, Sri M.Koti Raja Sekhar, Counsel for respondent No.3 and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 of 16 MVOP 396 of 2021

J U D G M E N T

This petition is filed by the petitioners against the respondents for claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that on 11.04.2021 at about 11.40 hours, the deceased was proceedings towards Shivalathanda from

Alair on his motorcycle bearing No.TS-30G-3358. When he reached near

Sreekanthreddy Tiffin Center, Alair Railway gate, meantime, the

Respondent No.1 who was the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing No.TS-12UB- 1770 drove the same in rash and negligent manner at great high speed and dashed to the deceased. On account of which, the deceased fell down and sustained severe blood injuries on all over the body. Immediately the deceased was shifted to Area hospital Alair and later died in the transit while shifting to Hyderabad for better treatment. PS Alair had registered a case in Crime No.85/2021 U/s.304-A IPC.

The deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 55 years, doing agriculture and real estate broking business, used to earn a sum of

Rs.25,000/- per month and used to contribute the same entirely on his family. Due to the said accident, petitioners become destitute due to the sudden and untimely death of the deceased, who was the only earning member in the entire family. Respondent No.1 is driver, Respondent No.2 is owner and Respondent No.3 is Insurer of the crime vehicle. As such, all the 3 of 16 MVOP 396 of 2021

Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

3. Respondent No.1 who is the driver and Respondent No.2 who is the owner of the crime vehicle were set ex parte and remained ex parte.

4.Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and contended that the driver of the said crime vehicle was not holding driving license to drive the said Tipper Lorry at the time of accident.

The alleged accident took place due to sole negligence on the part of the rider of the Motorcycle who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Further, the rider of the said Motorcycle did not wear proper headgear. The petitioners failed to make the owner and insurer of the Motorcycle as parties to the proceedings. As such, the claim petition is dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. That they issued the policy in favour of respondent No.2 for the period from 25.11.2020 to 24.11.2021. This respondent seeks protection U/s.147 and 149 of M.V.Act.

As per section 134 [C] of M.V. 1988, it is the mandatory duty of the insured/respondent No.2 herein to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of injured, but the insured/respondent No.2 herein has not complied with statutory demand.

As per Section 158 [6] of M.V. Act, 1988, it is a mandatory duty of the concerned Police station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of the information, but the 4 of 16 MVOP 396 of 2021

Police failed to the same. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, following issues are framed for trial:-

1.Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, If so, to what quantum and from whom?

3.To what relief?

6.To prove their respective contentions, petitioners got examined

PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondents,

RWs 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B4.

7.After conclusion of trial, arguments of petitioners counsel heard.

Perused the written arguments filed by respondent No.3.

8.ISSUE NO.1:- Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1?

To prove this issue, petitioner No.1 pressed into service her evidence as PW1. Having relevancy to this issue, PW1 deposed that on 11.04.2021 at about 11.40 hours, her husband was proceeding towards Shivalathanda from Alair on his Motorcycle bearing No.TS- 30G-3358 as rider, on reaching near Sreekanthreddy Tiffin Center,

Alair Railway Gate, the respondent No.1 who was the driver of Tipper

Lorry bearing No.TS-12UB-1770 drove the same in rash and negligent 5 of 16 MVOP 396 of 2021 manner at great high sped and dashed to her husband Motorcycle from behind. On account of which, her deceased husband fell down and sustained severe injuries, immediately, he was shifted to Area

Hospital, Alair and thereafter he died in the transit while shifting to

Hyderabad for better treatment. That PS Alair registered a case in

Crime No.85/2021 U/s.304-A IPC and filed charge-sheet against respondent No.1. To support the said evidence of PW1, the petitioner got marked Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR along with complaint, Ex.A2 certified copy of charge-sheet, Ex.A3 certified copy of Inquest report,

Ex.A4 certified copy of crime details form, Ex.A5 certified copy of PME report and Ex.A6 certified copy of MVI Report.

9.The petitioner also examined PW2, who said to be eye witness.

PW2 deposed that on 11.04.2021 at 11.40 hrs, he was proceedings towards Shivalathanda from Alair. In meantime, the deceased was proceedings towards Shivalathanda From Alair on his motorcycle bearing No.TS-30-G-3358 as rider and on reaching near

Sreekanthreddy Tiffin Center, Alair Railway gate, meantime the driver of the Tipper Lorry bearing TS-12-UB-1770 drove the same in rash and negligent manner at great high speed and dashed to the deceased’s vehicle, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained severe blood injuries all over the body, immediately he was shifted to Area hospital Alair and the deceased died in transit while shifting him to

Hyderabad for better treatment. The accident occurred only due to the 6 of 16 MVOP 396 of 2021 negligence of respondent No.2. The said crime vehicle hit the deceased from his behind. He has seen the accident in close distance and he was listed as LW4 in the charge-sheet.

10.Respondents 1 and 2 who are driver and owner of the crime vehicle were set ex parte and remained ex parte. The main allegations of rash and negligent driving is against respondent No.1 and he choose to remain ex parte which implies that he is admitting the allegations of the petitioner against him that he was rash and negligent in driving the crime vehicle on the alleged date.

11.PW1 was cross-examined by respondent No.3. But surprisingly the documents got marked by the petitioner were never challenged by the respondents in the cross-examination of PW1, which simply means that they are admitting the said documents to be true and correct.

Even otherwise, when the Court perused the documents it is observed that the FIR under Ex.A1 was lodged on the same date. The Police on lodging the FIR swung into action, did investigation and filed charge- sheet under Ex.A2. In the investigation under Ex.A2 the Police found that respondent No.1 was guilty of rash and negligent driving and he was charged with offence U/s.304-A IPC. That apart, the MVI report under Ex.A6 also shows that accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. These documents were remained unchallenged by all the respondents. Simply suggestions 7 of 16 MVOP 396 of 2021 were given to PW1 that accident did not occur due to negligence of respondent No.1 which suggestions were denied by PW1. Suggestions cannot take the place of evidence unless suggested fact is proved. The only defence elicited by the contesting respondent in the cross- examination of PW1 is that as per crime record the driver of the crime vehicle is charged U/s.181 of M.V.Act. On perusal of the charge-sheet under Ex,A2 it appears that respondent No.1/driver of the crime vehicle is also charged U/s.181 of M.V.Act besides Section 304-A IPC.

The accusation against respondent No.1 is that on demand by the

Police respondent No.1 failed to produce the license. In this case also respondent No.1 remained exparte. These facts supports the evidence of RW1 that respondent No.1 was not having driving license as on the date of accident. However, the deceased is the third party and victim.

Therefore, the victim does not have any concern with the driver having license or not having license. It is between the Insured and Insurer.

That apart, as per the case law of Hon’ble High Court in Swaran

Singh case in (2004) 3 SCC 297 it was held that "where the driver does not possess the valid driving license and there are breach of policy conditions “pay and recovery" can be ordered in case of third party risks".

12.In the cross-examination of PW2, nothing much was elicited by respondent No.3 to discredit the evidence of PW2. In fact PW2 added in his cross-examination that his name is shown as witness No.4 in the 8 of 16 MVOP 396 of 2021 list of witnesses in the charge-sheet and his statement was also recorded by the Police. This proves that the evidence deposed by PW2 is supporting the evidence of PW1 with respect to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 witnessed by PW2. That apart, the charge- sheet under Ex.A2 and the FIR under Ex.A1 were never challenged by contesting respondent in the cross-examination of PW2. Therefore, we hold that petitioner proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.

13.PW1 stated that the deceased died due to the injuries he suffered in the accident while he was being shifted to the Hospital. To support the said contention, the petitioner relied on Ex.A3 Inquest report and Ex.A5 PME report. These documents also left unchallenged by contesting respondent and it shows that the deceased died immediately after the accident while he was being taken to the

Hospital. As such, we hold that petitioner proved the fact that death of the deceased is the direct result of the accident. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

14.ISSUE NO.2:- Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what quantum and from whom?

PW1 stated that deceased is her husband and petitioners 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. Respondent No.3 did not object for this statement of PW1. But however, respondent No.3 in the written 9 of 16 MVOP 396 of 2021 statement raised objection questioning the legal status of the petitioner with the deceased. The same respondent who raised the objection, in the cross-examination of PW1 it is elicited by referring the deceased as husband of PW1. This elicited fact proves the legal status of the petitioner with the deceased.

15.As per the evidence of PW1 the deceased was aged about 55 years. In the counter respondent No.3 raised objection regarding the age of the deceased and got marked Ex.B2 which is Aadhar Card of the deceased. On perusal of Ex.B2, it reflects the date of birth of the deceased as 02.04.1955. The accident occurred on 11.04.2021. Going by the said dates, the age of the deceased comes to 66 years. As such, we hold that the deceased was aged about 66 years at the time of accident.

16.PW1 stated that the deceased was doing agriculture, dairy and

Real Estate business and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. To support the said evidence of PW1, she got examined PW3. PW3, who is constructor of buildings deposed that the deceased namely Daravath

Ramoji @ Ramji was working under him for sale of houses and flats.

PW3 used to pay the deceased Rs.20,000/- and also used to give commission on each flat. The deceased was earning nearly Rs.40,000/- per month (Salary Rs.20,000/- + Commission Rs.20,000/-). The 10 of 16 MVOP 396 of 2021 deceased was working under him since 10 years till his death and he is having agriculture land and in leisure time he used to do agricultural work.

17.In the cross-examination of PW3, the only suggestion given to him that he is deposing false. By keeping aside this suggestion, at least it was the burden of petitioner to prove the identity of PW3 and to prove his avocation so that his evidence can be taken on record to believe that deceased was employed under him. There is no ID card of

PW3, there is no proof that PW3 is working in the construction business. As such, there is no proof that the deceased was being paid

Rs.20,000/- per month under him. However, the deceased age was 66 years as on the date of accident. It is also not specifically mentioned by PW3 that the deceased was working as a labourer. With respect to the alleged dairy business of the deceased, the petitioner has not filed any proof nor the petitioner filed any proof of real estate brokering business of the deceased. In view of the same considering the age of the deceased, the Notional income of the deceased is decided as

Rs.12,000/- which the Minimum Wage to a labourer in under Minimum

Wages Act. Even as per minimum wages act, a minimum wage labour gets Rs.300/- per month and comes to Rs.9,000/- per month. But, however the notional Income of the deceased is taken as 11 of 16 MVOP 396 of 2021

Rs.12,000/- per month. The annual Income of the deceased comes to Rs.12,000 x 12 = 1,44,000/-.

18. As per the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranaya Sethi and Others

reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, When there are 4 dependents 1/4th of his income should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Therefore, after 1/4th of the deductions in annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,08,000/- i.e. (1,44,000 – 36,000 =

Rs.1,08,000/-).

19.In the case ofP.Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 the Hon’ble Apex Court fixed the multiplier of the persons in between the age group of 66 to 70 years as ‘5’. In the present case, the deceased is aged about 66 years, so the multiplier ‘5’ should be taken for calculation of compensation.

Loss of Dependency:- Yearly income of the deceased x multiplier 5 which comes to Rs.1,08,000 x 5 = Rs.5,40,000/-.

20.Future prospects:- As per the same case law 10% of the said amount should be calculated as future prospects for the persons in the age group of 50 to 60 years i.e., 5,40,000 x 10% = Rs.54,000/-.

12 of 16 MVOP 396 of 2021

21.General and Non-Pecuniary Damages:- Under the given circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to grant following compensation:-

Loss of Estate Rs.15000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of consortium Rs.50,000/- Filial consortium Rs.50,000/- each to petitioners 2 to 4 Total Rs.2,30,000/-

In view of my aforesaid discussion, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,24,000/- i.e., (Rs.5,40,000 + 54,000 + 2,30,000 = Rs.8,24,000/-).

22.Liability:- In the defence, the respondent No.3 in order to prove that they are not liable to pay compensation have examined

RW1, who is Legal Officer of Respondent No.3 Insurance company. RW1 deposed that Respondent No.3 has issued policy for Tipper Lorry from 25.11.2020 to 24.11.2021 and was in force as on the date of alleged accident. That the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess driving license as on the date of accident. RW1 got marked Exs.B1 and B2 which are copy of insurance policy and copies of Aadhar Cards of deceased and petitioner No.1.

23.The respondent also examined RW2, who is RTA officer in Yadadri

Bhongir District to support the contention of respondent No.3. RW2 deposed that as per their record, respondent No.1 is not having driving 13 of 16 MVOP 396 of 2021 license. That respondent No.1 belongs to Vangapalli Village which comes under RTA Yadadri, Bhongir. That in their system persons having driving license appears from any where in Telagana if he has obtained driving license from any District. RW2 got marked Exs.B3 and B4 which are his authorization and information regarding the checking of office record.

24.The only defence taken by the respondent by examining RW1 and RW2 is that as per the charge-sheet it is clearly mentioned that respondent No.1 was not having driving license as on the date of accident. The same is also deposed by RW2 that respondent No.1 was not having driving license. The investigation made by RW2 in their system is marked as Ex.B4. However, it is already concluded in the first issue that the charge-sheet contains the fact that respondent No.1 was not having driving license as on the date of accident and therefore

Section 181 of M.V.Act was also added besides Section 304-A IPC in the charge-sheet. But however it is once again reiterated that the deceased in the present case has nothing to do for the contract of insurance between Insured and Insurer i.e. respondent No.2 and respondent No.3. The deceased is the victim in the case. If respondent

No.3 says that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having driving license it may be breach of contract of Insurance, but he cannot be totally exonerated from payment of compensation. At the most, pay and recovery can be ordered in favour of respondent No.3 for the 14 of 16 MVOP 396 of 2021 breach of contract of insurance. As such, we hold that Issue No.1 is answered fixing the liability on Respondent No.1/driver of the crime vehicle and consequently, Respondent No.2 who is the owner of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.3, who is Insurer of the crime vehicle becomes vicariously liable for the acts of Respondent No.2.

Respondent No.3 who is the insurer of the crime vehicle is also liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for the reason that the crime vehicle was insured with them and they got marked the policy copy under Ex.B1. Ex.B1 shows that the policy was in force as on the date of accident and the deceased is clearly third party. As per the terms and conditions of the policy when the insurance company has collected premium covering the risk of accident under their own policy, respondent No.3/Insurance company also becomes jointly and severally liable along with respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

Accordingly, the issue is answered.

25.ISSUE NO.3:- In the result, the petition is allowed and award is passed by granting compensation of Rs.8,24,000 /- along with costs and accrued interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit with costs as follows:- 15 of 16 MVOP 396 of 2021

(i) Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners with accrued interest and costs.

(ii) Respondents are directed to deposit the above said compensation with accrued interest and costs within 30 days from the date of this award. Pay and Recovery is ordered in favour of Respondent

No.3.

(iii) Upon such deposit, petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.5,24,000/- and petitioners 2 to 4 are entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- each towards their share and they are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount falling to their share at once with accrued interest and costs.

(iv) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.20,000/-. Deficit Court fee if any shall be paid within 10 days from the date of this award, then office is directed to prepare the award forthwith.

(vi)Decree shall be drawn only on payment of remaining Court fee, if not paid.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4th day of May, 2026.

XII Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

Corrections carried out.

16 of 16 MVOP 396 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS:

PW1 : Dharavath Neelamma RW1 : PV.Abhinav Sai

PW2 : Mudavath Ravinder RW2 : Rajesh Gaikwad

PW3 : N.Ramdas

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS :

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of FIR with complaint

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of charge-sheet

Ex.A3 : Certified copy of Inquest report

Ex.A4 : Certified copy of Crime details form

Ex.A5 : Certified copy of PME Report

Ex.A6 : Certified copy of MVI Report

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1 : True copy of Insurance Policy

Ex.B2 : Copy of Aadhar card of deceased and petitioner No.1

Ex.B3 : Authorization letter

Ex.B4 : Information regarding the checking of office record

XII Addl.Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

Corrections carried out.