Sri. T.Anand M.A. L.L.B.,

1 MVOP No. 1/2009

In the court of the District Judge-cum-Chairman, MACT, Chittoor.

Present : Sri T.Anand, Chairman, MACT-cum-

District Judge

Tuesday, the Twenty Sixth (26th) day of April, 2016

M.V.O.P.No.1/2009

Between:

K.Kuppuswamy @ Kuppan, represented by his Guardian/wife, Smt K.Aniyamma. (Smt K.Anniyamma is appointed as Guardian for the petitioner as per orders in I.A.No.376/2012 dt 29-9-2012)

.. Petitioner

And:

1. M.Ravi

2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Chittoor

3. C.Prakash (R.3 impleaded as per orders in IA.No.885/2015 dt 2-12-2015)

.. Respondents

…

This petition coming on before me for final hearing on 8-3-2016, upon perusing the petition, written statements of respondents and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N.Dwarakanatha Reddy, advocate for the petitioner and of Sri P.Daya Sekhar, Advocate for respondents 1 and 3 and of Sri K.Suresh, Advocate for second respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following

AWARD

Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a.

2. Brief facts disclosed in the claim petition are as follows:

a) On 26-2-2008 at about 8 p.m., the accident took place on Chittoor-

Tirupati road near Vaddivanikandriga when TVS XL bearing R.No.AP03 G 5874 driven by the petitioner with one K.Narayanaswamy, pillion rider was hit by another motorcycle bearing R.No. AP 03 AA 9761 (herein after referred to as crime vehicle) driven by one C.Prakash, friend of R.1, in a rash and negligent manner.

2 MVOP No. 1/2009

b) Petitioner and pillion rider fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Petitioner sustained the following injuries:

1. Severe head injury.

2.Diffuse axonal injury.

3.Left temporal bone fracture

4.Evidence of traumatic subarachoid haemorrhage along the anterior flax and convexities.

5. 3 x 1 x 1 c.m., left frontal linear laceration

6. 2 x 1 x 0.5 cm laceration over the philtrum of upper lip.

7.1 x 0.5x1c.m. laceration on the outer margin of the left eyebrow

8. 5 x 2 x 1 c.m. laceration over the left ankle and foot

9. Scattered crepitation in the chest, bilaterally.

c) Petitioner was admitted in Government hospital, Chittoor at the first instance and later shifted to C.M.C. hospital, Vellore on 27-2-2008. He was discharged on 13-3-2008. C.T. brain was done on 27-2-2008. G.I. scopy was done on 6-3-2008 and the petitioner was on ventilator for number of days. Even after discharge also the petitioner visited the hospital for follow-up treatment. Petitioner is unable to move from bed. Thus, not in a position to attend his normal duties. He lost memory power due to head injury and not able to recognize his relatives and known persons. Petitioner’s wife K.Anniyamma was appointed as Guardian for the petitioner as per orders in I.A.376/2012 dt 29-9-2012 due to his mental condition.

d) Petitioner was an agriculturist and collecting milk at M.Bandapalle village prior to accident and was earning Rs.50,000/- p.a., out of agriculture and

Rs.4,000/- p.m., in milk business. He lost his earning capacity due to permanent disability sustained on account of injuries. He had spent Rs.2,62,717/- towards medical and hospital treatment and also spent Rs.4,000/- towards transport and

Rs.6,000/- towards extra-nourishment and Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges.

e) First respondent’s friend, who drove the crime vehicle is responsible for the accident. Hence, R.1 being the owner of the vehicle and R.2 being the insurer of the motorcycle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

3 MVOP No. 1/2009

f) Crime was registered against C.Prakash in Crime No.24/2008, under S.338

I.P.C. Later, charge sheet was filed in C.C.367/2008 on the file of IV Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

g) Third respondent, C.Prakash is also responsible for the accident due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle. Third respondent is added as party as per orders passed in I.A.885/2015 dt 2-12-2015. Thus, total compensation of

Rs.6,00,000/- is claimed by the petitioner.

3. R.1, R.2 and R.3 filed separate written statements.

4. R.1 filed written statement, contending as follows:

At the outset the claim petition averments are denied. Averment regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner is denied. Likewise averment regarding the manner in which the accident had taken place as stated in the claim petition is also denied. Petitioner is called upon to prove the same. It is denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of motorcycle i.e., R.3. Rider of motorcycle is having valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Motorcycle has got insurance coverage with R.2 and the same was in force as on the date of accident. Claim is excessive. So also the rate of interest. Injuries sustained by the petitioner are simple in nature. Averment that the petitioner was earning Rs.50,000/- p.a., from agriculture and Rs.4,000/- p.m., from selling milk is false. Claim is without any basis. R.2 alone is liable to pay compensation, if at all compensation is awarded. TVS 50 XL motorcycle bearing

R.No.AP03 G 5874 is involved in the accident and the petitioner failed to implead owner and insurer of TVS 50 XL motorcycle. Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

5. R.2 contended as follows:

At the outset the claim petition averments are denied. Specific denial is with regard to the manner in which the accident had taken place as stated in the claim petition. Averment regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner is denied. Liability of respondent is covered by policy. Person who drove the vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. First respondent has handed over possession of motorcycle, who has no valid driving licence and therefore contravened the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. R.2 sought protection under Ss.147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is stated that mandatory provisions 4 MVOP No. 1/2009 under S.134 © and 158 (6) of Motor Vehicles Act are not complied. Claim is excessive. So also the rate of interest. Petitioner sustained the following injuries

a) Severe head injury.

b)Diffuse axonal injury.

c)Left temporal bone fracture

d)Evidence of traumatic subarachoid haemorrhage along the anterior flax and convexities.

e)3 x 1 x 1 c.m., left frontal linear laceration

f) 2 x 1 x 0.5 cm laceration over the philtrum of upper lip.

g)1 x 0.5x1c.m. laceration on the outer margin of the left eyebrow

h) 5 x 2 x 1 c.m. laceration over the left ankle and foot

i)Scattered crepitation in the chest, bilaterally.

C.T.brain was done on 27-2-2008. G.I.scopy was done on 6-3-2008 and the petitioner was on ventilator for number of days. Even after discharge from the hospital, petitioner had visited C.M.C. hospital, Vellore for follow up treatment. It is denied that petitioner was an agriculturist and earning Rs.50,000/- p.a., from agriculture and Rs.5,000/- p.m., from milk business. It is denied that petitioner spent Rs.2,62,717/- towards medical and hospital bills and spent Rs.4,000/- towards transport and further spent Rs.6,000/- towards extra-nourishment and

Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges. Vehicle has got insurance coverage.

Driver of crime vehicle C.Prakash was having valid driving licence. Driver of crime vehicle/respondent No.3 was charge sheeted in C.C.No.367/2008 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. It is therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. R.3 contended as follows:

The manner in which the accident had taken place as stated in the claim petition are denied. It is stated that petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without taking any precautions and dashed against the respondent’s vehicle resulting in the accident. Petitioner and others sustained injuries in the said accident. R.1 is owner of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 03 AA 9761. The said vehicle was comprehensively insured with the second respondent as on the date of accident. Claim of the petitioner is highly excessive.

5 MVOP No. 1/2009

7. The following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent’s motorcycle bearing No.AP 03 AA 9761?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation for the injuries sustained by him, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3.To what relief?

. 8. During trial, on claimant’s side PWs. 1 to 3 are examined and Exs.A1 to A7 are marked. On respondents’ side R.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 and Ex.X.1 are marked.

ISSUE NO.1:

9. Contention of 2nd respondent is that the crime vehicle is falsely implicated in this case in order to lay false claim against 2nd respondent. It is further contended that negligence is on the part of rider of motor cycle bearing No. AP-03/G-5874 and not due to any fault on the part of driver of crime vehicle bearing No.AP03-AA/9761.

It is pointed out that even in the complaint given to police, no vehicle number is mentioned and the vehicle is described as TVS XL. Further, it is contended that 3rd respondent who is impleaded as driver of crime vehicle is not the driver as on the date and time of accident and the same was driven by one Ravi.

10. Ex.A1 is FIR in Cr.No. 24/2008 of Puthalapattu PS. Ex.A2 is certified copy of charge sheet in CC No.367/2008 on the file of IV Addl. JFCM., Chittoor. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of Accident Information Report. Ex.B2 is the copy of policy. Ex.X1 is the B Register extract relating to the vehicle bearing No. AP-03/G-5874.

11. P.W.1 is Guardian of the petitioner. According to PW1, on 26-2-2008 at about 8-00 P.M., while her husband Kuppan alias Kuppuswamy was driving TVS

XL bearing No. AP-03/G/5874 on Chittoor – Tirupati road, accident took place near

Vaddivanikandriga when motor cycle bearing No. AP03/AA/9761 driven by its driver C.Prakash dashed the TVS XL driven by Kuppan from behind while coming in the same direction, due to which, her husband Kuppan alias Kuppaswamy and the pillion rider Narayanaswamy fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Ex.A2 charge sheet shows that the vehicle bearing No. AP-03/G-5874 was 6 MVOP No. 1/2009 hit by crime motor cycle bearing No. AP03/AA/9761 due to the rash and negligent driving of Prakash. It is true that in the complaint, the vehicle number is not mentioned, but merely because the vehicle number is not mentioned in the complaint, it cannot be said that the crime vehicle was falsely implicated in the case.

12. It is held in 2014(1) ALD 541 (DB) (AP) in Bolledu Anil Raj Vs.

P.Sambasiva Rao and others:

“In a claim petition filed under Motor Vehicles Act, findings are recorded only on the basis of probabilities”

It is further held that:

“Burden on a claimant stands discharged once he places before the Tribunal copies of FIR pertaining to the case relating to the accident and charge sheet.”

13. Though in the complaint, number of the crime vehicle is not mentioned, police after investigation, filed charge sheet mentioning the number of vehicle. So, it is for the insurance company to show that the investigation done by police is not correct. There is no such evidence placed before this court by the insurance company.

Hence, the charge sheet contents are proved by evidence.

14. PW2 is an eye witness to the occurrence of incident. His evidence is to the effect that while Kuppu Swamy and Narayana swamy were proceeding on the

TVS XL, the motor cycle belonging to 1st respondent and driven by 3rd respondent came in the same direction behind TVS XL and dashed it, due to which, accident occurred and rider and pillion rider of TVS XL sustained grievous injuries. There is nothing in his cross examination to show that evidence of PW2 is false. Evidence of

PW1 is thus corroborated by PW2, who stated that TVS XL was hit by motor cycle bearing No. AP03/AA/9761 driven by 3rd respondent. Evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 coupled with police investigation done in this case, as per Ex.A2, clearly prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 3rd respondent while driving crime vehicle. Hence the contention of 2nd respondent that the crime vehicle was falsely implicated in the case cannot be accepted.

15. Further, as per Ex.A3 Accident Information Report, 3rd respondent is mentioned as driver of crime vehicle and he has valid driving licence vide Driving 7 MVOP No. 1/2009 Licence No.DLF003153942007 valid upto 26-11-2027. Name of owner of crime vehicle is mentioned as M.Ravi, who is 1st respondent in this case. So, the fact that crime vehicle is involved in the accident cannot be disputed. Further, the vehicle has insurance coverage with 2nd respondent vide Ex.B2 copy of policy.

16. R.W.1 in his evidence stated that there is no vehicle bearing R.No.AP03 G 5874 as per RTA records. Further, it is stated that accident occurred due to negligence of petitioner, who was not possessing valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. It is further stated that C.Prakash (R.3) is not driver of motorcycle bearing

R.No.AP03 AA 9761 at the time of alleged accident and one Arun was the driver who has no valid driving licence at the time of accident. As already stated by me police filed charge sheet against R.3, who was driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. Further, the Accident Information Report shows that the said Prakash was having valid driving licence. No evidence is produced by RW1 to prove that rider of

TVS XL AP 03 G 5874 was not possessing valid driving licence. Even as per the evidence of R.W.2, motorcycle bearing R.No.AP03 G 5874 stands registered in the name of Murali Krishna.

17. The contention of counsel for R.2 is that the vehicle is Bajaj 4S Boxer motorcycle and not TVS XL as stated by R.W.2. In my view, discrepancy with regard to the vehicle is immaterial. There is no dispute with regard to the crime vehicle and police investigation also established that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of crime vehicle . I, therefore, hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of 1st respondent’s vehicle i.e., 3rd respondent, while driving the crime vehicle. Hence, 1st respondent being the owner, 2nd respondent being the insurer and 3rd respondent being the driver of crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. This issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.2:

18. Petitioner claimed Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation. P.W.1, wife of the petitioner deposed that her husband met with an accident on 26-2-2008 and sustained the following injuries which is marked as Ex.A.4. There was a 3 x 1 x 1 c.m., left frontal linear laceration with no underlying fracture or CSF leak. There was 2 x 1 x 0.5 c.m., laceration over the philtrum of the upper lip and a 1 x 0.5 x 1 c.m., 8 MVOP No. 1/2009 laceration on the outer margin of the left eyebrow, with no palpable fracture underlying it. There were blood clots seen in both nostrils, with no active nasal bleed. There was 5 x 2 x 1 c.m. laceration over the left ankle and foot, with no extension to the joint or underlying fracture. The spine examined showed no tenderness or deformity. There were scattered crepitation in the chest, bilaterally.

The rest of the systemic examination was normal. Ex.A.5 is discharge summary issued by C.M.C. hospital, Vellore. Ex.A.6 are medical bills numbering 53 for total sum of Rs.2,62,717/-. Ex.A.7 is permanent disability certificate issued by Dr

A.Sudhakar Reddy, Neuro Surgeon, SVRRGG hospital, Tirupati.

19. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that her husband used to earn Rs.40,000/- p.a., out of agriculture and Rs.4,000/- p.m., by doing milk business. P.W.1 denied that medical bills under Sl.Nos.9, 15, 32, 37, 40, 43, 44 and 48 are only advanced receipts covered by other bills.

20. P.W.2 is an eye-witness to the incident and also spoke about income of husband of P.W.1. But no documentary evidence is forthcoming with regard to income of husband of P.W.1.

21. P.W.3 deposed that petitioner suffered serious head injury in the accident and was admitted in SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati and thereafter he was treated in

C.M.C. hospital, Vellore from 27-2-2008 to 15-3-2008. C.T. scan of brain was done in

CMC hospital and it disclosed that the petitioner suffered fracture in the left temporal bone. Thereafter Tracheotomy was done. Petitioner was discharged on 15- 2-2008. At the time of discharge, he had weakness of right upper limb and right lower limb and unable to speak. Petitioner approached P.W.3 after discharge from

CMC hospital, Vellore and was under his treatment. On neurological examination,

P.W.3 found the following permanent disability.

1. Post traumatic headache

2. Post traumatic vertigo.

3. Post traumatic defective memory

4. Post traumatic aphasia (unable to speak)

5. Post traumatic right hemiparesis (weakness)

6. Disfiguration due to scar over left face.

9 MVOP No. 1/2009

22. Basing on the above said disabilities, P.W.3 assessed the disability as 50%.

Nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination to discredit the evidence of

P.W.3. In view of Exs.A.4, A.5 and A.7, it cannot be said that P.W.1 did not suffer permanent disability. However, there is no evidence on record with regard to the income of the petitioner. In the absence of any document regarding the income of the deceased, it is reasonable to take the income of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/- p.m.

23. There is no evidence to prove the age of petitioner. In the absence of age proof certificate, the age of petitioner as mentioned in wound certificate i.e., Ex.A.4 can be taken into consideration for assessing loss of earning. As per Ex.A.4, age of petitioner is shown as “ 49 years”.

24. As per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), it is held as follows:

“We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok

Chandra and Charlie, which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”

The appropriate multiplier for the age group between 46 to 50 years is “13” as per the above referred decision.

25. The loss of earnings due to permanent disability can be arrived at as follows:

Rs.3,000x12x50/100 x13= Rs.2,34,000/-

Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering an

Rs.1,02,357/- towards medical expenses. In all, petitioner is awarded a sum of

Rs.3,61,357/- .

10 MVOP No. 1/2009

26. Admittedly there is insurance coverage to the crime vehicle as on the date of accident. No evidence is adduced by R.2 to show that the crime vehicle driver/R.3 had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence, liability of R.1 to R.3 are joint and several to pay compensation. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.3 :-

27. In the result, the OP is partly allowed, granting compensation of

Rs.3,61,357/- to the Guardian of claimant with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally The Guardian of claimant is permitted to withdraw half of the compensation amount with accrued interest and costs and the remaining amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years. Time for deposit is two months. It is further ordered that second respondent while deducting income tax, if any, on the interest amount on the compensation awarded, shall follow the decision reported in 2014 (2) ALT 42 between Oriental

Insurance Co.,Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Secunderabad & G.S.Diwakar (died) and others. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of April, 2016.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-cum-District Judge, Chittoor

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined:-

For Petitioner:

P.W.1 Smt K.Aniyamma P.W.2 Sri M.Panchaksharam P.W.3 Dr A.Sudhakar Reddy

For Respondents:

R.W.1 Sri U.Bharani Kumar R.W.2 Sri Purushotham Reddy

Exhibits marked:

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1 Certified copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.24/2008 of Puthalapattu police station. Ex.A.2 Certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.367/2008 on the file of IV AJFCM, 11 MVOP No. 1/2009 Chittoor Ex.A.3 Certified copy of Accident Information Report Ex.A.4 Certified copy of wound certificate Ex.A.5 Discharge summary issued by Christian Medical College hospital, Vellore. Ex.A.6 Medical bills numbering 53 for a total sum of Rs.2,62,717/- Ex.A.7 Permanent disability certificate issued by Dr A.Sudhakar Reddy, Neuro Surgeon, SVRRGG hospital, Tirupati.

For Respondents:

Ex.B.1 Copy of house hold supply card Ex.B.2 Copy of policy

Exhibits marked through witnesses

Ex.X.1 B register extract copy of motorcycle bearing R.No. AP03 G 5874 .

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-cum-D.J., Chittoor 12 MVOP No. 1/2009

Fair Award in MVOP 1/2009

Dated 26-4-2016 Dist.Court,CTR

13 MVOP No. 1/2009

1 MVOP No. 2/2009

In the court of the District Judge-cum-Chairman, MACT, Chittoor.

Present: Sri T.Anand, Chairman, MACT-cum-

District Judge

Tuesday, the Twenty Sixth (26th) day of April, 2016

M.V.O.P.No.2/2009

Between:

K.Narayanaswamy .. Petitioner

And:

1. M.Ravi

2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Chittoor

3. C.Prakash (R.3 impleaded as per orders in IA.No.886/2015 dt 2-12-2015)

.. Respondents

…

This petition coming on before me for final hearing on 8-3-2016, upon perusing the petition, written statements of respondents and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N.Dwarakanatha Reddy, advocate

for the petitioner and of Sri P.Daya Sekhar, Advocate for respondents 1 and 3 and

of Sri K.Suresh, Advocate for second respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following

AWARD

Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a.

2. Brief facts disclosed in the claim petition are as follows:

a) On 26-2-2008 at about 8 p.m., the accident took place on Chittoor-

Tirupati road near Vaddivanikandriga when TVS XL bearing R.No.AP03 G 5874 driven by K.Kuppan @ K.Kuppaswamy (petitioner in MVOP 1/2009) with petitioner as pillion rider was hit by another motorcycle bearing R.No. AP 03 AA 9761 (herein after referred to as crime vehicle) driven by one C.Prakash, friend of

R.1, in a rash and negligent manner.

b) Rider and pillion rider/petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and were shifted to Government hospital, Chittoor on 26-2-2008 2 MVOP No. 2/2009 and from there, they were shifted to SVRRGG hospital, Tirupati for better treatment. Petitioner remained as inpatient in SVRRGG hospital, Tirupati on 27-2- 2008 and was discharged on 24-3-2008.

c) Petitioner got operated left leg knee joint during his stay in the hospital.

Regional Medical Board of SVRRGG hospital, Tirupati, issued certificate, stating that petitioner suffered 60% permanent disability. Petitioner is unable to walk and do his normal duties.

.

d) Petitioner was an agriculturist and doing petty business prior to accident and was earning Rs.40,000/- p.a., out of agriculture and Rs.6,000/- p.m., in petty business. He lost his earning capacity due to permanent disability sustained on account of injuries. Petitioner in all spent Rs.25,000/- towards medical bills,

Rs.4,000/- towards transport, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and hotel bill and Rs.3,000/- towards extra-nourishment.

e) First respondent’s friend, who drove the crime vehicle is responsible for the accident. Hence, R.1 being the owner of the vehicle and R.2 being the insurer of the motorcycle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

f) Crime was registered against C.Prakash in Crime No.24/2008, under S.338

I.P.C. Later, charge sheet was filed in C.C.367/2008 on the file of IV Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

g) Third respondent, C.Prakash is also responsible for the accident due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle. Third respondent is added as party as per orders passed in I.A.886/2015 dt 2-12-2015. Thus, total compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- is claimed by the petitioner.

3. R.1, R.2 and R.3 filed separate written statements.

4. R.1 filed written statement, contending as follows:

3 MVOP No. 2/2009 At the outset the claim petition averments are denied. Averment regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner is denied. Likewise averment regarding the manner in which the accident had taken place as stated in the claim petition is also denied. Petitioner is called upon to prove the same. It is denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of motorcycle i.e.,

R.3. Rider of motorcycle is having valid driving licence as on the date of accident.

Motorcycle has got insurance coverage with R.2 and the same was in force as on the date of accident. Claim is excessive. So also the rate of interest. Injuries sustained by the petitioner are simple in nature. Averment that the petitioner was earning Rs.40,000/- p.a., from agriculture and Rs.6,000/- p.m., from petty business is false. Claim is without any basis. R.2 alone is liable to pay compensation, if at all compensation is awarded. TVS 50 XL motorcycle bearing R.No.AP03 G 5874 is involved in the accident and the petitioner failed to implead owner and insurer of

TVS 50 XL motorcycle. Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

5. R.2 contended as follows:

At the outset the claim petition averments are denied. Specific denial is with regard to the manner in which the accident had taken place as stated in the claim petition. Averment regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner is denied. Liability of respondent is covered by policy. Person who drove the vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. First respondent has handed over possession of motorcycle, who has no valid driving licence and therefore contravened the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. R.2 sought protection under Ss.147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is stated that mandatory provisions under S.134 © and 158 (6) of Motor Vehicles Act are not complied. Claim is excessive. So also the rate of interest. It is denied that petitioner suffered permanent disability on account of injuries. Petitioner is called upon to prove the same. It is denied that petitioner was an agriculturist and earning Rs.40,000/- p.a., from agriculture and Rs.6,000/- p.m., from petty business. It is denied that petitioner spent Rs.25,000/-towards medical bills and spent Rs.4,000/- towards transport and further spent Rs.3,000/- towards extra-nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. Vehicle has got insurance coverage. Driver of crime vehicle

C.Prakash was having valid driving licence. Driver of crime vehicle/respondent

No.3 was charge sheeted in C.C.No.367/2008 on the file of IV Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. It is therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4 MVOP No. 2/2009

6. R.3 contended as follows:

The manner in which the accident had taken place as stated in the claim petition are denied. It is stated that rider- Kuppuswamy drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without taking any precautions and dashed against the respondent’s vehicle resulting in the accident. Petitioner and others sustained injuries in the said accident. R.1 is owner of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 03 AA 9761. The said vehicle was comprehensively insured with the second respondent as on the date of accident. Claim of the petitioner is highly excessive.

7. The following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing No.AP 03 AA 9761 by its rider?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation for the injuries sustained by him, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3.To what relief?

. 8. During trial, on claimant’s side PWs. 1 to 3 are examined and Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.C.1 are marked. On respondents’ side R.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and

Exs.B.1 and Ex.X.1 are marked.

Issue No.1:-

9. Contention of 2nd respondent is that the crime vehicle is falsely implicated in this case in order to lay false claim against 2nd respondent. It is further contended that negligence is on the part of rider of motor cycle bearing No. AP-03/G-5874 and not due to any fault on the part of driver of crime vehicle bearing No.AP03-AA/9761.

It is pointed out that even in the complaint given to police, no vehicle number is mentioned and the vehicle is described as TVS XL. Further, it is contended that 3rd respondent who is impleaded as driver of crime vehicle is not the driver as on the date and time of accident and the same was driven by one Ravi.

10. Ex.A1 is FIR in Cr.No. 24/2008 of Puthalapattu PS. Ex.A2 is certified copy of charge sheet in CC No.367/2008 on the file of IV Addl. JFCM., Chittoor. Ex.A4 is 5 MVOP No. 2/2009 the certified copy of Accident Information Report. Ex.B1 is the copy of policy. Ex.X1 is the B Register extract relating to the vehicle bearing No. AP-03/G-5874.

11. According to PW1, on 26-2-2008 at about 8-00 P.M., while one Kuppan alias Kuppuswamy was driving TVS XL bearing No. AP-03/G/5874 on Chittoor –

Tirupati road, accident took place near Vaddivanikandriga when motor cycle bearing

No. AP03/AA/9761 driven by its driver C.Prakash dashed the TVS XL driven by

Kuppan from behind while coming in the same direction, due to which, the said

Kuppan alias Kuppaswamy and the pillion rider Narayanaswamy fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Ex.A2 charge sheet shows that the vehicle bearing No. AP-03/G-5874 was hit by crime motor cycle bearing No. AP03/AA/9761 due to the rash and negligent driving of Prakash. It is true that in the complaint, the vehicle number is not mentioned, but merely because the vehicle number is not mentioned in the complaint, it cannot be said that the crime vehicle was falsely implicated in the case.

12. It is held in 2014(1) ALD 541 (DB) (AP) in Bolledu Anil Raj Vs.

P.Sambasiva Rao and others:

“In a claim petition filed under Motor Vehicles Act, findings are recorded only on the basis of probabilities”

It is further held that:

“Burden on a claimant stands discharged once he places before the Tribunal copies of FIR pertaining to the case relating to the accident and charge sheet.”

13. Though in the complaint, number of the crime vehicle is not mentioned, police after investigation, filed charge sheet mentioning the number of vehicle. So, it is for the insurance company to show that the investigation done by police is not correct. There is no such evidence placed before this court by the insurance company.

Hence, the charge sheet contents are proved by evidence.

14. PW3 is an eye witness to the occurrence of incident. His evidence is to the effect that while Kuppu Swamy and Narayana swamy were proceeding on the

TVS XL, the motor cycle belonging to 1st respondent and driven by 3rd respondent came in the same direction behind TVS XL and dashed it, due to which, accident 6 MVOP No. 2/2009 occurred and rider and pillion rider of TVS XL sustained grievous injuries. There is nothing in his cross examination to show that evidence of PW3 is false. Evidence of

PW1 is thus corroborated by PW3, who stated that TVS XL was hit by motor cycle bearing No. AP03/AA/9761 driven by 3rd respondent. Evidence of PWs. 1 and 3 coupled with police investigation done in this case, as per Ex.A2, clearly prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 3rd respondent while driving crime vehicle. Hence the contention of 2nd respondent that the crime vehicle was falsely implicated in the case cannot be accepted.

15. Further, as per Ex.A4 Accident Information Report, 3rd respondent is mentioned as driver of crime vehicle and he has valid driving licence vide Driving

Licence No.DLF003153942007 valid upto 26-11-2027. Name of owner of crime vehicle is mentioned as M.Ravi, who is 1st respondent in this case. So, the fact that crime vehicle is involved in the accident cannot be disputed. Further, the vehicle has insurance coverage with 2nd respondent vide Ex.B1 copy of policy.

16. R.W.1 in his evidence stated that there is no vehicle bearing R.No.AP03 G 5874 as per RTA records. Further, it is stated that accident occurred due to negligence of Kuppuswamy, (petitioner in MVOP 1/2009), who was not possessing valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. It is further stated that C.Prakash (R.3) is not driver of motorcycle bearing R.No.AP03 AA 9761 at the time of alleged accident and one Arun was the driver who has no valid driving licence at the time of accident.

As already stated by me police have filed charge sheet against R.3, who was driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. Further, the Accident Information Report shows that the said Prakash was having valid driving licence. No evidence is produced by RW1 to prove that rider of TVS XL AP 03 G 5874 was not possessing valid driving licence. Even as per the evidence of R.W.2, motorcycle bearing

R.No.AP03 G 5874 stands registered in the name of Murali Krishna.

17. The contention of counsel for R.2 is that the vehicle is Bajaj 4S Boxer motorcycle and not TVS XL as stated by R.W.2. In my view, discrepancy with regard to the vehicle is immaterial. There is no dispute with regard to the crime vehicle and police investigation also established that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of crime vehicle . I, therefore, hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of 1st respondent’s vehicle i.e., 3rd respondent, while driving the crime vehicle. Hence, 1st respondent being the 7 MVOP No. 2/2009 owner, 2nd respondent being the insurer and 3rd respondent being the driver of crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. This issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.2:

18. Petitioner claimed Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation. It is the evidence of

P.W.1 that he was looking after agriculture and doing paddy business and was earning Rs.40,000/- p.a., from agriculture and Rs.6,000/- p.m., out of petty business and that due to permanent disability suffered by him on account of injuries caused in the accident, he is unable to do any work and thus lost his income. It is further evidence of P.W.1 that inspite of best treatment at SVRRGG hospital, Tirupati, he is unable to walk and do normal duties and getting pain in the left leg. He suffered mentally and physically on account of fractures. He spent Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenditure, spent Rs.10,000/- towards transport and spent another

Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and hotel bill and also spent Rs.3,000/- towards extra-nourishment.

19. Ex.A.3 is certified copy of wound certificate in favour of petitioner. Ex.A.5 is discharge summary issued by SVRRGG hospital, Tirupati. Ex.A.6 is permanent disability certificate issued by Regional Medical Board, SVRRGG hospital, Tirupati.

‘

20. P.W.2-Associate Professor of Orthopaedics in SVRRGG hospital, Tirupati, stated that P.W.1 was admitted in the said hospital with I.P.No.5823/2008 on 27-2- 2008 at about 2-45 p.m., with the following injuries:

1. Lacerated injury 5 x1 c.m., below the left knee joint.

2. Swelling of left knee joint with posterior lateral dislocation left knee joint.

Injury No.2 is grievous in nature. X-ray of left knee joint A.P. lateral view revealed fracture of lateral tibia with condole fracture of femur and was operated on 7-3-2008 and was discharged on 24-3-2008. Ex.A.6-disability certificate is marked as

Ex.A.6 and true copy of case sheet is marked as Ex.C.1.

21. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that P.W.1 cannot walk properly and completely due to the injuries suffered in the accident and further P.W.1 cannot lift heavy weights and cannot squat. As per Ex.A.6, the percentage of disability was assessed at 8 MVOP No. 2/2009 60%. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 to show that Ex.A.6 is false document. Ex.A.6 is marked through P.W.2 who is Orthopaedic Doctor. The fact that P.W.1 had undergone surgery is proved by the evidence of P.W.2. In view of the evidence of P.W.2, it cannot be said that P.W.1 did not suffer permanent disability. However, no document is filed to prove the income of P.W.1. In the absence of documentary evidence, it is reasonable to take the income of P.W.1 at

Rs.3,000/- p.m.

22. There is no evidence to prove the age of P.W.1. In the absence of age proof certificate, the age of P.W.1 as mentioned in wound certificate i.e., Ex.A.3 can be taken into consideration for assessing loss of earning. As per Ex.A.3, age of P.W.1 is shown as “ 55 years”.

23. As per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), it is held as follows:

“We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok

Chandra and Charlie, which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”

The appropriate multiplier for the age group between 51 to 55 years is “11” as per the above referred decision.

24. The loss of earnings due to permanent disability can be arrived at as follows:

Rs.3,000x12x60/100 x11= Rs.2,37,600/-

Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. No proof is filed regarding medical expenses and other incidental expenses incurred by him during the treatment in the hospital. Hence, no compensation is awarded under those heads. In all, claimant is awarded a sum of Rs.2,62,600/-.

9 MVOP No. 2/2009

25. Admittedly there is insurance coverage to the crime vehicle as on the date of accident. No evidence is adduced by R.2 to show that the crime vehicle driver/R.3 had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence, liability of R.1 to R.3 are joint and several to pay compensation to the claimant. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

26. ISSUE NO.3

In the result, the OP is partly allowed, granting compensation of Rs.2,62,600/- to the claimant with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally The claimant is permitted to withdraw half of the compensation amount with accrued interest and costs and the remaining amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in a

Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years. Time for deposit is two months. It is further ordered that second respondent while deducting income tax, if any, on the interest amount on the compensation awarded, shall follow the decision reported in 2014 (2) ALT 42 between Oriental Insurance Co.,Ltd., rep. by its Divisional

Manager, Secunderabad & G.S.Diwakar (died) and others. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of April, 2016.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-cum-District Judge, Chittoor

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined:-

For Petitioner:

P.W.1 Sri K.Narayanaswamy P.W.2 Dr S.Hari Babu P.W.3 Sri M.Panchaksharam

For Respondents:

R.W.1 Sri U.Bharani Kumar R.W.2 Sri Purushotham Reddy

Exhibits marked:

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1 Certified copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.24/2008 of Puthalapattu police station.

10 MVOP No. 2/2009 Ex.A.2 Certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.367/2008 on the file of IV AJFCM, Chittoor Ex.A.3 Certified copy of wound certificate Ex.A.4 Certified copy of Accident Information Report Ex.A.5 Discharge summary issued by SVRRGG hospital, Tirupati. Ex.A.6 Permanent disability certificate issued by Regional Medical Board, SVRRGG hospital, Tirupati.

For Respondents:

Ex.B.1 Copy of policy

Exhibits marked through witnesses

Ex.X.1 B register extract copy of motorcycle bearing R.No. AP03 G 5874 .

Exhibits marked through commissioner

Ex.C.1 Attested Xerox copy of case sheet of petitioner

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-cum-D.J., Chittoor

Fair Award in MVOP 2/2009

Dated 26-4-2016 Dist.Court,CTR

11 MVOP No. 2/2009

In the Court of the District Judge, Chittoor.

Present: Sri T.Anand,

Principal District Judge.

Tuesday, the Twenty Sixth (26th) day of April, Two Thousand Sixteen

D.O.P.No.371/2015

Between:

Smt L.Kavitha .. Petitioner

And:

C.Devakumar .. Respondent

… This D.O.P. coming on 26-4-2016 before me for final hearing, upon perusing the petition, counter and material papers on record and upon hearing arguments of Sri V.Lokanadha Reddy, learned counsel petitioner and Sri G.Sasi Kumar, learned counsel

for respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the

following:

O R D E R

Petition filed under S. 10 (x) of Indian Divorce Act seeking divorce.

2. Petition contents are as follows:

Marriage between the petitioner and respondent was celebrated on 26-2-2014 at CSI

Church at Katpadi as per Christian rites and customs and the marriage was performed by the Bishop Rev.Rt Dr A.Rajavelu. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was working as

Staff Nurse in Chittoor. Immediately after the marriage, the petitioner joined in the house of respondent and started living as a dutiful wife. Petitioner was coming to Chittoor daily for attending her job in Government hospital, Chittoor. On the advise of the parents and brothers of the respondent, he has put up family at Chittoor and he was attending his job at CMC hospital, Vellore as there was inconvenience to the petitioner. Both of them stayed at Chittoor only for two months and thereafter the respondent, his brothers and parents started harassing the petitioner for want of additional dowry and also for salary of the petitioner and forced her to hand over her ATM card to the respondent. But, the parents of the petitioner expressed their inability to pay additional dowry. At last in the month of January, 2015 the respondent had taken all the jewellery of the petitioner and left her company and joined his parents. Thereafter the parents of the petitioner mediated the matter through elders and well-wishers on several occasions but inspite of negotiations by mediators, the respondent and his family members did not agree to restore the conjugal life of the petitioner with the respondent and at last they imposed a condition to pay an additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent and the parents of the petitioner are not in a position to pay such huge amount, the petitioner joined her parents and living along with them from January, 2015.

2

The petitioner herein has got issued a legal notice dt 24-8-2015 to the respondent, his brothers and parents calling upon them to return the jewellery of the petitioner along with dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which was given by the parents at the time of marriage.

The respondent has got issued a reply notice with all false and frivolous allegations. The respondent, having harassed the petitioner for want of dowry and taking away all the jewellery, has filed FCOP.No.166/2015 on the file of Family Court at Vellore under Sec.32 of Divorce Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Since the petitioner is not in a position to tolerate the cruelty of the respondent and his family members, the petitioner filed this petition.

3. Respondent filed counter, denying the averments in the petition except factum of marriage. The respondent spent an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for his marriage with the petitioner and he never demanded any amount. Though the petitioner and respondent lived together in one roof, the petitioner has not given conjugal life to the respondent and not discharged the duties as a wife. Though the petitioner is an earning person, by working as a Nurse in Government hospital, Chittoor, he never questioned about her salary. But the parents of the petitioner are totally depending on the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner did not heed the advice of the elders for an amicable settlement and to live with the respondent. Moreover, the relatives of the petitioner beat him on 11- 6-2015 and in that connection he gave a report to the police. Finally, the respondent has submitted that he has no objection to grant divorce to the petitioner.

4. Point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for divorce?

POINT:

5. Petitioner got herself examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 in order to prove her marriage with respondent. Respondent examined as R.W.1. Anyhow, respondent is also not disputing the factum of marriage. Respondent though filed counter denying the averments in the petition did not cross-examine P.W.1. Hence, I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. R.W.1 categorically stated that he has no objection to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that the petition can be allowed as prayed for.

Accordingly, the point is answered

6. In the result, the petition is allowed, by granting decree of divorce by dissolving marriage dt 26-2-2014 between petitioner and respondent.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, this the 26th day of April, 2016.

PRINCIPALDISTRICT JUDGE,

Chittoor 3

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For petitioner: For respondent

P.W.1 Smt L.Kavitha R.W.1 Sri C.Devakumar

Exhibits marked

For petitioner:

Ex.A.1 Wedding card of the petitioner and respondent Ex.A.2 Joint photo of the petitioner and respondent Ex.A.3 Copy of legal notice issued by petitioner dt 24-8-2015 with postal acknowledgment. Ex.A.4 Served copy of reply notice dt 16-9-2015 Ex.A.5 Served copy of the petition in FCOP No.166/2015 on the file of Family Court, Vellore. Ex.A.6 Attested copy of Aadhar card of petitioner

For respondent : -Nil-

PDJ, Ctr 4

Fair Order in D.O.P.No.371/2015

Dt 26-4-2016

5

DOP 371/2015

5. Petitioner got herself examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 in order to prove her marriage with respondent. Respondent examined as R.W.1. Anyhow, respondent is also not disputing the factum of marriage. Respondent though filed counter denying the averments in the petition did not cross-examine P.W.1. I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. R.W.1 categorically stated that he has no objection to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that the petition can be allowed as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered.

1

In the Court of the Principal District Judge:: Chittoor.

Present: Sri T.Anand,

Principal District Judge

Tuesday, the Twenty Sixth (26th) day of April, Two Thousand Sixteen

G.O.P.No.57/2016

Between:

K.Purushotham Mandadi, being Natural Father and Guardian of his Minor son by name K.Udaya Kiran

.. Petitioner

And:

-Nil- .. Respondent

... This G.O.P. coming on 25-4-2016 before me for final hearing, upon perusing the petition and material papers on record and upon hearing arguments of Sri V.Lokanadha Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, this court made the following:

O R D E R

Petition filed under S.8 (2) (a) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship

Act, 1956, to grant permission to the petitioner to sell the petition schedule property on behalf of the minor K.Udaya Kiran, to the persons who are intending to purchase the same and to execute a register sale deed in favour of such purchasers on behalf of the minor.

2. Petition averments are as follows:

Petitioner, being the absolute owner of the petition schedule property and some other properties has gifted the same to his minor son viz., K.Udaya Kiran out of his love and affection towards him and delivered possession to the minor, represented by grandfather of the minor, who is father of the petitioner, by name K.Narasimhulu Mandadi, under a registered gift settlement deed dt 12-3-2008, under document No.379/2008.

The grandfather of the minor, as guardian, has accepted the said gift on behalf of his minor grandson K.Udaya Kiran and as per the recitals of the said registered gift settlement deed, the minor has to enjoy the same as 2 absolute owner who is represented by his grandfather K.Narasimhulu

Mandadi, who died on 13-7-2015 and since then the petitioner, being the natural father is in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property and looking after the welfare of his minor son.

Now the minor is aged about 14 years, studying 9th class in Z.P. High

School, Kothapallemitta of G.D.Nellore Mandal and he has to continue his studies in corporate school and that the minor is required sufficient financial support. Due to lack of sufficient water, there is no proper agriculture and income. To provide higher education, it is required to sell some of the properties gifted to the minor by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner decided to sell the petition schedule property for the sake of higher studies of his minor and the present petition is filed for seeking permission from the court to sell the petition schedule property. Hence, the petition.

3. None came forward as objectors to contradict the G.O.P., filed by the petitioner.

4. Petitioner examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the petition averments.

Ex.A.1-certified copy of registered gift settlement deed No.379/2008 dt 12-3- 2008 executed in favour of minor K.Udaya Kiran. Ex.A.2-copy of death certificate of K.Narasimhulu Mandadi, who is grandfather of minor

K.Udaya Kiran. Ex.A.3-True copy of Aadhar card of minor K.Udaya Kiran.

5. Evidence of P.W.1 is not contradicted by any other evidence. Hence, the evidence of P.W1 coupled with documentary proof can be believed to come to the conclusion that petitioner can be granted permission to sell the property on behalf of minor son.

6. In the result, G.O.P., is allowed, granting permission to the petitioner to sell the petition schedule property on behalf of the minor K.Udaya Kiran to the persons, who are intending to purchase the same and to execute a register sale deed in favour of such purchasers on behalf of the minor and to deposit such sale consideration in the name of minor K.Udaya Kiran, in any

Nationalized bank till he attains majority by permitting the petitioner to 3 withdraw the interest thereon to educate the minor towards expenses for further studies of the minor. The petitioner is directed to file copy of sale deed to be executed by the petitioner in favour of proposed purchasers and

Xerox copy of FDR in the court.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of April, 2016.

Principal District Judge,

Chittoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:

P.W.1 Sri K.Purushotham Mandadi

For respondent : -nil-

Exhibits marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1 Certified copy of registered gift settlement deed No.379/2008 dt 12-3-2008 executed in favour of minor K.Udaya Kiran Ex.A.2 Copy of death certificate of K.Narasimhulu Mandadi, who is grandfather of minor K.Udaya Kiran. Ex.A.3 True copy of Aadhar card of minor K.Udaya Kiran

For respondent: -Nil-

P.D.J. CTR 4

Fair Order in G.O.P.No.57/2016

Dt 26-4-2016

5 .

1

In the Court of the Principal District Judge:: Chittoor.

Present: Sri T.Anand,

Principal District Judge

Tuesday, the Twenty Sixth (26th) day of April, Two Thousand Sixteen

G.O.P.No.62/2016

Between: Smt T.Sarala

.. Petitioner

And:

-Nil- .. Respondent

... This G.O.P. coming on 25-4-2016 before me for final hearing, upon perusing the petition and material papers on record and upon hearing arguments of Sri S.Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, this court made the following:

O R D E R

Petition filed under S. 29 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, to grant permission to the petitioner to sell the petition schedule property to third parties enabling the petitioner to utilize the sale consideration amount for the benefit of the minor T.Gowtham Reddy.

2. Petition averments are as follows:

Petitioner is the Mother and Natural Guardian of the Minor

T.Gowtham Reddy, who is aged 13 years born on 26-7-2002. The petitioner purchased the petition schedule property in the name of her minor son viz.,

T.Gowtham Reddy from her own earnings under a sale deed dt 3-11-2008.

Petitioner is residing in Mangunta village of S.R.Puram Mandal, whereas the schedule mentioned properties which is a small extent of Ac 0-32 cents situated at Penumur village and Mandal. The distance between the village of the petitioner and the village where property situate is about 30 Kms and it is not possible for the petitioner to safe guard the petition schedule property.

2 Husband of the petitioner is leading wayward life and he is not taking care of the petitioner and there is no other persons to look after the petition schedule property and the same is kept fallow without cultivation and that no income is derived from the petition schedule property and the neighbouring land owners are making hectic efforts to encroach upon the petition schedule property. Minor T.Gowtham Reddy is studying VIII Class in Z.P. High school, Etteri village. Petitioner is intending to provide good education and bright future to the minor and that the petitioner intends to sell the petition schedule property and utilize the sale consideration for the welfare of the minor son of the petitioner. Petitioner undertakes that the sale consideration amount will be utilized for the welfare and benefit of the minor T.Gowtham Reddy only and also the petitioner undertakes to render proper accounts. Hence, the petition.

3. None came forward as objectors to contradict the G.O.P., filed by the petitioner.

4. Petitioner examined as P.W.1 and she reiterated the petition averments. Ex.A.1 is registered sale deed dt 3-11-2008 executed by

A.Gunasekhar Reddy in favour of minor T.Gowtham Reddy, represented by his Mother and Natural Guardian T.Sarala.

5. Evidence of P.W.1 is not contradicted by any other evidence. Hence, the evidence of P.W1 coupled with documentary proof can be believed to come to the conclusion that petitioner can be granted permission to sell the property on behalf of minor son.

6. In the result, G.O.P., is allowed, granting permission to the petitioner to sell the petition schedule property to third parties enabling the petitioner to utilize the sale consideration amount for the benefit of the minor T.Gowtham Reddy and to deposit such sale consideration in the name of minor T.Gowtham Reddy, in any Nationalized bank till he attains majority by permitting the petitioner to withdraw the interest thereon to educate the minor towards expenses for further studies of the minor. The petitioner is directed to file copy of sale deed to be executed by the 3 petitioner in favour of proposed purchasers and Xerox copy of FDR in the court.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of April, 2016.

Principal District Judge,

Chittoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:

P.W.1 Smt T.Sarala

For respondent : -nil-

Exhibits marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1 Registered sale deed dt 3-11-2008 executed by A.Gunasekhar Reddy in favour of minor T.Gowtham Reddy, represented by his Mother and Natural Guardian T.Sarala.

For respondent: -Nil-

P.D.J. CTR 4

Fair Order in G.O.P.No.62/2016

Dt 26-4-2016

5