Smt T. Jaya Lakshmi

1 OF 15 S.C(IE).NO.3 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA

Wednesday, this the 8 th day of November, 2023

PRESENT: Smt. T.Jaya Lakshmi, I-Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.

SESSIONS CASE (IE) NO.3 OF 2022

(OLD S.C(IE).NO.253 OF 2021)

(P.R.C.No.31/2021 in Crime No.322/2020 of P.S. Hasanparthy)

1.Name and description of theThe State of Telangana, represented by the complainantInspector of Police, P.S. Hasanparthy

2.Name and description of theA1. I llandula Mahender, s/o Rajaiah, Aged: accused34 years, SC-Madiga, Occu: Bricks Maker, R/o Pembarthy village, Hasanparthy Mandal.

A2. Dusa Dayanandam, s/o Narayana, Aged: 45 years, Padmashali, Occu: AE Chinthagattu Rural (Nagaram), R/o # 5-11- 601/5, Naimnagar, Hanamkonda, N/o H./No.1- 1100, Venkampet, Siricilla District.

A3. Gangula Sudhakar, s/o Iylaiah, Aged: 46 years, Munnurukapu, Occu: Linemen, R/o H.No.2-11, Sangem Village and Mandal, Warangal Rural District.

3.Offences charged447, 379, 304-II and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Electricity Act

4.Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

6.Conviction, sentence or acquittal IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 379 and 304-II of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Electricity Act and the accused Nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304A 2 OF 15 S.C(IE).NO.3 OF 2022 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure for the above said offences. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months (6) months as provided under Section 437-A of The Code of Criminal Procedure.

MO1 shall be destoryed after expiry of appeal time.

7.Name of the Counsel for theSri B.Rajamalla Reddy, Addl. P.P prosecution

8.Name of the Counsel for accused Sri M.Sahoder Reddy and Sri Md.Sardar, Advocates

This case is coming on for final hearing on 6.11.2023 before me in the presence of Sri B.Rajamalla Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri M.Sahoder Reddy, Counsel for the

accused No.1 and Sri Md.Sardar, Counsel for the accused Nos.2 and

3; upon hearing arguments, upon considering the material evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Inspector of Police, P.S. Hasanparthy, has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.322 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 379, 304-II and 109 of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 135 of Electricity Act against the accused No.1 and for the offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos.2 and 3.

3 OF 15 S.C(IE).NO.3 OF 2022

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:

(i)That on 16.12.2020 at 08.00 hours the de-facto complainant/PW1, who is son of the deceased/Bogi Murali has lodged a report stating that on 15.12.2020 at about 5.00 p.m. his father/deceased Bogi Murali went to his agricultural fields to open water pump to fetch water to the fields, at that time his village Illandula Mahender i.e. A1 who has taken the agricultural land of one Bairi Jyothi on lease and started manufacturing of bricks in it without obtaining any permission from the Electricity Department and trespassed into his field and committed theft of electricity from his electricity connection knowingly that it is illegal connection and there is chance of accident to anybody, who touches the wire can die, he erected electric wires. Yesterday his father went to his fields, touched the electric wire illegally laid which was erected by A1 and sustained burn injuries on his middle finger and left side of his chest and died on the spot. After sometime his younger brother i.e. PW3 and his relative Mandala Rajender i.e. PW5 went to their fields, found his father died due to touching of illegally erected electric wire. Further the said accused No.1 has also taken illegal electric supply from the electrical connections of Sura Iylaiah/

PW7 and Veesam Vijender Reddy/PW6 agricultural well. Earlier his younger paternal uncle Bogi Ashok has reported about illegal supply/theft of electricity to the Assistant Engineer i.e. A2 and concerned lineman i.e.

A3, but they did not initiate any action against him and they negligently 4 OF 15 S.C(IE).NO.3 OF 2022 avoided the issue, thereby they became responsible for the death of his father.

(ii)On the strength of the report given by PW1, PW12 registered a case in Cr.No322/2020 under Sections 447, 379, 304-II and 109 of Indian

Penal Code and Section 135 of Electricity Act and issued First Information

Report. Later, he visited the scene of offence, prepared crime details form in the presence of PW8 and LW11-Mandala Ravi along with rough sketch and seized electricity wire which was illegally fixed to the fuse of the deceased agricultural field and the electricity wire which was illegally fixed to the fuse of the fields of PW7, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of two mediators, got photographed the dead body of the deceased through private photographer, examined and recorded the statement of PWs 1 to 5 and other witnesses. Later, he referred the dead body for postmortem examination and the Professor,

FMD, KMC, Warangal issued PME report opining that the cause of death was due to electrocution.

(iii)On 8.1.2021 at 09.00 hours PW12 along with his staff rushed to

Pembarthy village and apprehended A1 at his house and interrogated in the presence of PWs 9 and 10. On interrogation, he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and seized 40 meters of electric wire with black colour sleeve, lease documents of Bairi Jyothi and Matteda Mogili 5 OF 15 S.C(IE).NO.3 OF 2022 from the possession of A1 under cover of panchanama. Later, brought him to the police station, affected his arrest and sent to judicial custody.

(iv)On 30.12.2020 PW12 addressed a letter to PW11 to issue accident report about the responsibility of electricity officials, who in-turn his submitted detailed enquiry report stating that A1’s brick manufacturer power supply also cut off due to SS-40/100 KVA transformer kept off and he extended supply to his brick works from another nearby I.T. line. Due to extending supply from other line of transformer SS-43/100 KVA, Bogi

Murali, SC No.841 which is on SS-40 also got return supply. Bogi Murali thought that there is no supply to service wire which he extended to A1 brick work lighting load, while removing of service wire which was extended to brick work is suddenly touched to his hands, he got electrocuted and died. Bogi Murali himself extended supply intentionally and unauthorizedly to A1 brick words from his agricultural pump set starter box. On 17.12.2020 the accident spot was inspected by

ADE/OP/Rural/Hanamkonda and a theft of energy case was booked under

Section 135 of Electricity Act. The said ADE has submitted preliminary report on the electrical fatal accident occurred to Bogi Murali on 24.12.2020. During inspection on 9.1.2021 the service to brick industry extended from SC No.539 which pertains to Bairi Jyothi. Again a theft of energy case was booked under Section 135 of Electricity Act. In this regard, it is revealed that Bogi Murali himself extended supply to A1 brick 6 OF 15 S.C(IE).NO.3 OF 2022 works illegally and while removing the service wire he suddenly touched the line, got electrocuted and died which got back supply from another low tension electric line passing nearby brick industry which is tapped by A1 illegally.

(v)During the investigation, it came to know that the accused Nos.2 and 3 are having knowledge about the theft of electricity from the fields of deceased, PWs 6 and 7, for which A1 used to give amounts to A2 and A3 regularly. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3.

3. The learned erstwhile V-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Warangal, took cognizance for the offences under Sections 447, 379 and 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Electricity against A1 and for the offence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code against A2 and A3 and numbered it as P.R.C.No.31/2021. Having secured the presence of the accused, the learned Committal Court, supplied them with the copies of documents. Since the offence under Section 304-II of the

Indian Penal Code alleged against the accused is exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions, Warangal, the learned Committal Court has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Warangal. The Court of Sessions,

Warangal, registered the case as S.C.No.253 of 2021 and made over to 7 OF 15 S.C(IE).NO.3 OF 2022 the Court of erstwhile I-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, for disposal according to law.

4.Due to bifurcation of Districts, the Sessions Case i.e. S.C.No.253 of 2021 (old) has been transmitted to the Court of Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda and the Principal Sessions Judge,

Hanumakonda, assigned new number as S.C(IE).No.3 of 2022 and made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.

5.After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and the Counsels representing the accused, charges under Sections 447, 379 and 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Electricity Act against the accused No.1 and under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code against

A2 and A3 were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they denied the said charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 12 and got marked Exs-P1 to P18 and MO1. After conclusion of the trial, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the evidence. They did not choose to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary.

8 OF 15 S.C(IE).NO.3 OF 2022

7.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8.Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 379 and 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Electricity Act against the accused No.1 and under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos.2 and 3 beyond reasonable doubt”?

9.POINT:The case of the prosecution is that on 15.12.2020 at about 17.00 hours at Mucherla village the accused No.1 criminally trespassed into the agricultural fields of the deceased-Bogi Murali and committed theft of electricity from the electric connection situated at his fields and also committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causing the death of Bogi Murali, as the accused No.1 has taken illegal connection of electricity and illegally laid electric wire, when the deceased came to his fields came in contact with the electric wire, due to which he sustained burn injuries and died on the spot and that the accused No.1 dishonestly took electricity from the electricity connection without having any license from the concerned and that the accused Nos.2 and 3 being electricity officials have not taken any action against the accused No.1 though one Bogi Ashok reported about illegal supply/theft of electricity and acted negligently and became responsible for the death of the deceased-

Bogi Murali.

9 OF 15 S.C(IE).NO.3 OF 2022

10.To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 12 and got marked Exs-P1 to P18 and MO1.

11.Now coming to the appreciation of evidence, PW1 who is none other than the de-facto complainant and son of the deceased-Bogi Murali and who set the criminal law into motion by lodging the report has deposed that the deceased-Bogi Murali is his father, who died due to electric shock. He further deposed that there are civil disputes in between themselves and the accused Nos.1 to 3. The accused did not take any illegal electric connection from their electric meter. He further deposed that since his father died due to electric shock, he went to the police station and informed the same to them, who obtained his signature on white paper. Ex-P1 is the signature on the report. He further deposed that he does not know the contents of the report. As PW1 deviated with the contents of his complaint and his 161 Cr.PC statement, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor has declared him as hostile and cross-

examined, but nothing was elicited in the cross-examination except marking his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C as Ex-P2.

12.PWs 2 to 4 who are wife, son and father of the deceased respectively at once voice categorically deposed that in the similar lines of

PW1. They too declared hostile by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and cross-examined, but nothing was elicited in their cross- 10 OF 15 S.C(IE).NO.3 OF 2022 examination except marking their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C as

Exs-P3 to P5 respectively.

13.PWs 5 to 7 who are circumstantial witnesses have categorically deposed that they do not know anything about this case. They too declared hostile by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and cross- examined, but nothing was elicited in their cross-examination except marking their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C as Exs-P6 to P8 respectively.

14.PW8 who is panch witness for crime details form has deposed that about two years back, the police came to the fields of PW1, observed the same and prepared crime details form under Ex-P9 which contain his signature and the signature of his cousin brother. In the cross- examination, he stated that he does not know the contents of crime details form.

15.PWs 9 and 10 who are crucial witnesses and panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama, but they categorically deposed that they do not know anything about this case. They further deposed that the accused No.1 did not confess anything before them and nothing was seized from his possession and no panchanama was conducted before them. But they admitted their signatures on confession cum seizure panchanama and the same are marked as Ex-P10 and Ex-P11 11 OF 15 S.C(IE).NO.3 OF 2022 respectively. They too declared hostile by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and cross-examined, but nothing was elicited in their cross- examination.

16.PW11 the then Superintendent Engineer, Operation, Warangal

Urban deposed that on the requisition of Inspector of Police, PS

Hasanparthy on 9.1.2021 he visited the agricultural land of Byire Jyothi,

Bhogi Murali and Elender Mahender. He further deposed that in the land of Bhogi Murali, there is service connection 841 and the same was extended by him unauthorizedly to the Elender Mahender agriculture land which is high voltage and that service connection was extended illegally by

Bhogi Murali by the Elender Mahender for manufacturing the bricks work.

He further deposed that he came to know that on 15.12.2020 one Bhogi

Murali was died due to electric shock. After inquiry, he submitted detailed report under Ex-P12.

17.PW12 who is the Investigation Officer has deposed about conducting of investigation, visiting scene of offence, examination of the witnesses, apprehension of the accused No.1 and producing him before the Court for remand and collection of relevant documents and also filing of charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3.

18.In this case, the material witnesses including the sons, wife and father of the deceased and circumstantial witnesses and also panch 12 OF 15 S.C(IE).NO.3 OF 2022 witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, as such, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses.

19.PW8 who is panch witness for crime details form supported the case of the prosecution in chief-examination, but in the cross-examination, he stated that he does not know the contents of crime details form. Hence, the evidence of PW8 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

20.The evidence of PW11 discloses that the deceased himself extended service connection wire illegally for manufacturing the bricks work of the accused No.1.

21.The Investigation Officer, who was examined as PW12 deposed about his investigation and filing of charge sheet against the accused

Nos.1 to 3. But his evidence was not supported by the independent witnesses more particularly the sons, wife and father of the deceased and also other witnesses and also panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama, since he is a Police Officer and his evidence was not supported by the independent evidence and therefore his evidence could not be believable.

22.For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond 13 OF 15 S.C(IE).NO.3 OF 2022 reasonable doubt and hence, they are entitled for benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

23.IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 379 and 304-II of Indian Penal

Code and Section 135 of Electricity Act and the accused Nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304A of Indian

Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of

The Code of Criminal Procedure for the above said offences. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months (6) months as provided under Section 437-A of The Code of Criminal

Procedure.

MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 8th day of November, 2023)

Sd/- Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi

I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

14 OF 15 S.C(IE).NO.3 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 -Bogi Akhil/de-facto complainant/ son of the deceased PW2 -Bogi Sudha/wife of the deceased PW3 -Bogi Ajay/son of the deceased PW4 -Bogi Rajamouli/father of the deceased PW5 -Mandala Rajender/circumstantial witness PW6 -V.Vijender Reddy/neighbouring land owner PW7 -Suram Iylaiah/neighbouring land owner PW8 -M.Sambaiah/panch witness for CDF PW9 -S.Babu/panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama PW10 -Koyyala Harish/panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama PW11 -K.Raju Chowhan/the then Superintendent Engineer PW12 -K.Sridhar Rao/Investigation Officer

FOR DEFENCE:

None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the signature of PW1 on the report. Ex-P2 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1. Ex-P3 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2. Ex-P4 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3. Ex-P5 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW4. Ex-P6 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW5. Ex-P7 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW6. Ex-P8 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW7. Ex-P9 is the crime details form. Ex-P10 is the signature of PW9 on confession and seizure panchanama. Ex-P11 is the signature of PW10 on confession and seizure panchanama. Ex-P12 is the report given by PW11. Ex-P13 is the original FIR. Ex-P14 is the inquest report. Ex-P15 is the lease paper of Bairi Jyothi.

15 OF 15 S.C(IE).NO.3 OF 2022

Ex-P16 is the lease paper of Matteda Mogili. Ex-P17 are the photographs of the deceased along with CD. Ex-P18 is the postmortem report.

FOR DEFENCE:

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 is the 40 meters of electric wire.

Sd/- Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi

I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

1 OF 13

MVOP NO.1093 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HANUMAKONDA

Wednesday, this the 8 th day of November, 2023

PRESENT: Smt.T.Jaya Laxmi,

Chairman, MACT-cum- I-Additional District Judge,

Hanumakonda.

M.V.O.P.NO. 1093 OF 2022

(OLD MVOP NO.23 OF 2017)

BETWEEN:

Bollampalli Sudharshan…Petitioner

AND

1. Parkala Ravi

2.Parkala Gouthami

3. The United Indian Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Huzurabad.…Respondents

This Original Petition came up before me for final hearing on 6.11.2023 in the presence of Sri M.Thirupathi, Counsel for the petitioner and of T.C.Sujatha, Counsel for the respondent No.3 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 having remained ex parte; upon hearing and on consideration of the material evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till date, this Tribunal made the following:

:: A W A R D ::

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 (1) (a) of M.V.

Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, claiming a compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- towards injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident took place on 9.2.2016 at 11.30 hours at the outskirts of Ippalnarsingapur village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District.

2 OF 13

MVOP NO.1093 OF 2022

2.The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner is the resident of

Gatlanarsingapur village of Bheemadevarapally Mandal, Karimnagar District and was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident by doing coolie/agricultural work and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and on 9.2.2016 in the morning himself along with Kolguri Murali as a pillion rider were proceeded on Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing No.AP15

R2845 from his village to go to Huzurabad on his personal work and when they crossed Ippalanarsingapur village near mill at about 11.30 a.m. the respondent No.1 driving the TATA Indica DLG-V2 Car bearing No.AP15

AL0036 (for short the crime vehicle) in high speed in a rash and negligent manner coming on opposite direction of the petitioner’s motorcycle and dashed against the petitioner’s bike and with that result, the petitioner and the pillion rider fell on the road with bike and the petitioner sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head and multiple injuries all over the body and immediately after the accident, he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal, from there he was shifted to Super Specialty Hospital, Hanamkonda, for better treatment, where Dr.T.Sanjay treated him after taking many diagnosis and the petitioner was operated and he received four grievous injuries besides other injuries and he was undergone treatment as an in-patient from 9.2.2016 to 19.2.2016 and discharged with an advice of follow-up treatment with special diet and bed rest, in the meanwhile a complaint was registered against the driver of the Indica Car i.e. respondent No.1 in Cr.No.31 of 2016 under

Section 337 of Indian Penal Code of Huzurabad Police Station and the petitioner incurred Rs.20,000/- towards investigation charges and medicines 3 OF 13

MVOP NO.1093 OF 2022 and Rs.5,000/- for extra-nourishment and Rs.5,000/- for transportation charges and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 being owner of the crime vehicle and the respondent No.3 is the insurer and all of them are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on all heads and hence, the petition.

3.The respondent Nos.1 and 2 set ex parte.

4.The respondent No.3 filed its counter by denying the manner of the accident and involvement of the crime vehicle, income, age and earning of the petitioner and also the injuries, but admitting the policy is in existence and seeks protection under Sections 147 and 149 of M.V. Act and the respondent

No.2 failed to comply the mandatory provision under Section 134(c) of M.V.

Act and the police failed to oblige the provision under Section 158(6) of M.V.

Act and the respondent No.1 is not having driving license and so that the

Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount, as there is violation of policy conditions and the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and so that the Company is not liable to pay any compensation and the interest claimed is also excessive and no medical bills were filed to prove the medical expenditure and hence, the petition may be dismissed.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues for framed for trial:- 4 OF 13

MVOP NO.1093 OF 2022

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the vehicle by R1 as alleged by petitioner?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for and if so what rate and from whom?

(3) To what relief?

6.In support of the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs-A1 to A6 and the doctor who treated the petitioner was examined as PW2 and got marked Ex-X1 through Advocate-

Commissioner. On behalf of the respondent No.3, the Deputy Divisional

Manager of the respondent Company was examined as RW1 and got marked

Exs-B1 to B4. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 also filed a petition under Section 170 of M.V. Act and the same was allowed.

7.The Original Petition No.23 of 2017 (old) was transferred to the Hon’ble

Principal District Court, Hanumakonda, in view of formation of new judicial

districts on the point of jurisdiction and the same was re-numbered as

M.V.O.P.No.1093 of 2022 and made over to this Court for disposal.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material placed on record.

9.ISSUE NO.1: Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by R1 as alleged by petitioner?

The case of the petitioner is that on on 9.2.2016 in the morning himself along with Kolguri Murali as a pillion rider were proceeded on Hero Honda

Splendor Motorcycle bearing No.AP15 R2845 from his village to go to 5 OF 13

MVOP NO.1093 OF 2022

Huzurabad on his personal work and when they crossed Ippalanarsingapur village near mill at about 11.30 a.m. the respondent No.1 driving the TATA

Indica DLG-V2 Car bearing No.AP15 AL0036 in high speed in a rash and negligent manner coming on opposite direction of the petitioner’s motorcycle and dashed against the petitioner’s bike and with that result, the petitioner and the pillion rider fell on the road with bike and the petitioner sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head and multiple injuries all over the body and immediately after the accident, he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal, from there he was shifted to Super Specialty Hospital, Hanamkonda, for better treatment, where Dr.T.Sanjay treated him after taking many diagnosis and the petitioner was operated and he received four grievous injuries besides other injuries and he was undergone treatment as an in-patient from 9.2.2016 to 19.2.2016 and discharged with an advice of follow-up treatment with special diet and bed rest, in the meanwhile a complaint was registered against the driver of the Indica Car i.e. respondent No.1 in Cr.No.31 of 2016 under

Section 337 of Indian Penal Code of Huzurabad Police Station.

10.It is the specific case of the petitioner that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and to support the case of the petitioner, who is injured himself examined as PW1 and relied upon the Exs-A1 to A6. Ex-A1 is the CC of FIR along with complaint. Ex-A2 is the CC of injury certificate. Ex-A3 is the CC of Form

No.54. Ex-A4 is the CC of charge sheet. In the chief-examination affidavit, he reiterated his pleadings and in the cross-examination except the 6 OF 13

MVOP NO.1093 OF 2022 suggestions, which are denied by him nothing could be elicited to discredit his evidence.

11.On perusal of the FIR, it shows that the complaint was lodged by one

Bollampally Srujana, who is wife of the petitioner against the driver of Indica

Car bearing No.AP15 AL0036 and basing on that, the police Huzurabad registered a case in Cr.No.31/2016 under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code and after investigation, the Investigating Officer therein came to a conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver i.e. respondent No.1 of the above said crime vehicle and thereby he was charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 338 of Indian Penal

Code and Section 3 read with 181 of M.V. Act. The petitioner also relied upon the Ex-A2/injury certificate and also Ex-X1/case sheet issued by Rohini

Medicare Private Hospital, Hanamkonda. As per the oral evidence of PW2, who treated the petitioner is that he operated the petitioner on 9.2.2016 and discharged on 19.2.2016 and advised to take bed rest and he was treated under Arogyasri Scheme.

12.The respondent No.3 cross-examined PWs 1 and 2 at length, but did not elicit anything that the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. Hence, considering the evidence placed by the petitioner as PW1 and Exs-A1 to A4 and Ex-X1, it can conclude that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries i.e. right temporal skull fracture, right temporal parietal acute extra dural hemotoma, 7 OF 13

MVOP NO.1093 OF 2022 acute sub dural hemotoma in right fronto temporal region of brain and right temporal intra ceberal contusion.

Hence, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner and

against the respondents.

13.ISSUE NO.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for and if so what rate and from whom?

The petitioner relied upon the Ex-A2/CC of injury certificate, in which it discloses that the petitioner received grievous injuries i.e. right temporal skull fracture, right temporal parietal acute extra dural hemotoma, acute sub dural hemotoma in right fronto temporal region of brain and right temporal intra cereberal contusion and the petitioner was treated in Rohini Medicare Private

Hospital, Hanumakonda. PW2 the doctor who treated the petitioner clearly deposed about the operation held by him to the petitioner. He also further deposed that the petitioner was advised to take bed rest. In the cross- examination, it was elicited that the petitioner was treated under Arogyasri

Scheme. Therefore, it can conclude that the petitioner received grievous injuries.

14.To disprove the case of the petitioner, the Deputy Divisional Manager of the respondent No.3 Company was examined as RW1 and he reiterated the pleadings of their case. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the policy is in force. Therefore, the respondent No.3 failed to rebut the evidence of the petitioner with regard to the accident. It is an admitted fact that as on the date of the accident, the policy is in existence which was marked as Ex-B4.

8 OF 13

MVOP NO.1093 OF 2022

15.The petitioner did not adduce any evidence that he was earning

Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of the accident by doing coolie/agricultural work. The petitioner belongs to rural area and generally, the rural area people will not be idle and they will certainly attend the coolie works. Therefore, it can taken into consideration that the petitioner was earning Rs.9,000/- per month and as per the evidence of PW2, the petitioner was advised to take bed rest. Therefore, the income lost by him is Rs.18,000-00 (Rs.9,000/- X 2 months) for which the petitioner is entitled for the same. It is an admitted fact that at the first instance, the petitioner was shifted to MGM Hospital,

Warangal, from there he was shifted to Rohini Medicare Private Hospital,

Hanamkonda. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.5,000-00 towards transportation charges. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was treated under Arogyasri Scheme and therefore, he is not entitled for any medical expenses. As per the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex-A2/injury certificate and Ex-X1/case sheet, the petitioner received grievous injuries i.e. right temporal skull fracture, right temporal parietal acute extra dural hemotoma, acute sub dural hemotoma in right fronto temporal region of brain and right temporal intra ceberal contusion and therefore, for pain, suffering, shock and mental agony, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.20,000-00 and for extra- nourishment he is entitled for Rs.12,000-00. Further, the petitioner is also entitled to Rs.95,000-00 towards disability.

16.Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts:

9 OF 13

MVOP NO.1093 OF 2022 1Compensation towards loss ofRs.18,000-00 earnings (past) 2Compensation under the headRs. 5,000-00 of transportation 3Compensation under the headRs.20,000-00 of pain, suffering, shock and mental agony 4Compensation under the headRs.12,000-00 of extra-nourishment 5Compensation towardsRs.95,000-00 disability

Total Rs.1,50,000-00

17.In the facts and circumstances and under the present law, the petitioner is not entitled to any other compensation amount and the rest of the claim is disallowed.

18.As far as the liability is concerned, it is already held in issue No.1 that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA Indica Car bearing No.AP15 AL0036 i.e. respondent No.1, resulting in injuries to the petitioner. The respondent No.3 has contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess driving license on the date of the accident. In support of its contention, the respondent No.3 got examined its Deputy Divisional Manager as RW1 and through him Exs-B1 to B4 are marked and he also stated in his chief-examination that the respondent No.1 is not having driving license and in his cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of accident, the policy is in force. Since RW1 admitted that the policy 10 OF 13

MVOP NO.1093 OF 2022 was in force as on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. But, it is pertinent to see that whether the driver had valid driving license as on the date of the accident. The evidence of RW1 clearly establishes that the driver i.e. respondent No.1 is not having driving license. Moreover, the police Huzurabad filed charge sheet which was marked as Ex-A4 under Section 3 read with 181 of M.V. Act apart from

Section 338 of Indian Penal Code against the respondent No.1. Thus, it is held that the respondent No.1 did not have valid driving license as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company could prove that the driver i.e. respondent No.1 did not have any driving license on the date of the accident to drive the crime vehicle.

19.The Hon’ble Apex Court in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY

LIMITED vs. S.IYYAPAN reported in 2013 (7) SCC 62, in which it was held that “even though the insurer has taken the defence that there is a breach of conditions of the policy excluding the Insurance Company from liability that the driver is not duly licensed in driving the crime vehicle which met with the accident, third party has a statutory right to recover compensation from the insurer and it was for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount paid to the third party, in case, there was any breach of conditions of the insurance policy.” In another Judgment of Hon’ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh in DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA

ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. ACCHIGARI PRASAD AND

OTHERS reported in 2015 (3) ALT 238, in which it was held that “even 11 OF 13

MVOP NO.1093 OF 2022 though the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing any license or valid license, when the insurance policy was in force at the time of the accident, the Insurance Company can be directed to satisfy the award in the first instance, by paying the award amount to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.” Therefore, it is held that the respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the petitioners and then recover from the insured/owner of the crime vehicle i.e.

respondent No.2.

20.In the light of the above cited Judgments, it is held that the respondent

No.3 shall deposit the compensation amount at the first instance and then recover the same from the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) with costs and interest.

Accordingly, the Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioner

and against the respondents.

21.ISSUE NO .3:To what relief?

In view of the findings given in Issue Nos.1 and 2, the petition has to be allowed.

22.IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,50,000-00 (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) with future interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from 12 OF 13

MVOP NO.1093 OF 2022 the date of petition till the date of payment or realization, recoverable by the petitioner. The rest of the claim of the petitioner is disallowed without costs.

The respondents shall bear their own costs.

The respondent No.3 is directed to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners at the first instance and then recover the same from the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Time for deposit is one month.

On deposit of the awarded amount with costs and interest, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount at once.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 8th day of November, 2023)

Sd/- Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

13 OF 13

MVOP NO.1093 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

PW1 -Bollampalli Sudharshan PW2 -Dr.T.Sanjay

FOR RESPONDENTS:

RW1 -L.Krishna Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex-A1 is the certified copy of FIR along with complaint. Ex-A2 is the certified copy of injury certificate. Ex-A3 is the certified copy of Form No.54. Ex-A4 is the certified copy of charge sheet. Ex-A5 is the original discharge summary. Ex-A6 is the certified copy of crime details form.

Ex-X1 is the case-sheet.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex-B1 is the office copy of letter sent to the respondent No.2. Ex-B2 is the postal acknowledgment, dated 24.2.2021. Ex-B3 is the returned envelop with acknowledgment, dated 22.2.2021 sent to the respondent No.2. Ex-B4 is the attested copy of insurance policy along with terms and conditions.

Sd/- Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

1 OF 13

MVOP NO.358 OF 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HANUMAKONDA

Monday, this the 6th day of November, 2023

PRESENT:Smt.T.Jaya Laxmi, Chairman, MACT-cum- I-Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda.

M.V.O.P.NO. 358 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

1.Udutha Rajaiah

2.Udutha Padma

3.Velpula Madhavi

4.Thatha Pushpa Rani…Petitioners

AND

Bashaboina Rajanna…Respondent

This Original Petition is coming up before me for final hearing on 2.11.2023 in the presence of Sri N.Sreedhar Rao, Counsel for the petitioners and of Sri B.Venkat Ram, Counsel for the respondent; upon hearing and on consideration of the material evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till date, this Tribunal made the following:

:: A W A R D ::

1.The petitioners who are parents and sisters of the deceased/Udutha

Krishnakar have filed this petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation 2 OF 13

MVOP NO.358 OF 2018 of Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss sustained by them, due to the untimely death of the deceased, in a road traffic accident occurred on 4.8.2017.

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

(i) On 4.8.2017 the deceased/Udutha Krishnakar and his villager

Bashaboina Ashoka were went to Gollapally village from Gopalapuram village by his Motorcycle bearing No.AP36 A8580 and at about 23.30 hours when the deceased reached at the outskirts of Gopalapuram village, meantime one

Motorcycle bearing No.TS03 EA9087 (for short crime vehicle) driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased in opposite direction, resulting the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal and the deceased was succumbed to injuries on 5.8.2017 while undergoing treatment.

(ii)Upon the complaint made by the petitioner No.1, the police Duggondi registered a case in Cr.No.103/2017 and after investigation the police filed charge sheet under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of

Motor Cycle bearing No.TS03 EA9087.

(iii)It is further averred that the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of his death and he was hale and healthy and he studying B.Sc.,

Agriculture and very sharp and actively participated in the college games and the deceased used to assist the petitioner No.1 for raising the commercial crops, as the petitioner No.1 is having agricultural lands in his village. Due to 3 OF 13

MVOP NO.358 OF 2018 death of the deceased, the petitioners were put to mental shock and agony and also lost love and affection on the deceased. The deceased lost his life at the early age and also lost his bright future and the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 lost their only son and the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 lost their brother. The petitioner lost their future dependency and future earnings of the deceased. If the deceased would have alive, he would get an employment and he would have look after the welfare of the petitioners. Thus, in all the heads, the petitioners are claiming Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation from the respondents. It is further contended that the deceased was died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle bearing No.TS03 EA9087 which belongs to the respondent, as such, he is vicariously liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

3. The respondent filed his counter denying all the averments of the petition and also manner of the accident and that the amount claimed by the petitioners are exorbitant. It is further submitted that the Motor Cycle bearing

No.TS03 EA9087 belongs to this respondent. It is further contended that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased, who was in drunken condition while driving his Motorcycle bearing No.AP36 A8580 along with his son Ashok as pillion rider and dashed to the motorcycle of this respondent and caused the accident and the motorcycle of the deceased was damaged to maximum extent and there was no negligence on the part of this respondent and this respondent sustained injuries in the said accident and was shifted to Guardian Hospital, Warangal, where he undergone treatment.

4 OF 13

MVOP NO.358 OF 2018

The report reveals that the deceased consumed alcohol. It is further contended that the accident occurred in the dark night of 4.8.2017 at about 23.30 hours and on account of death of the deceased,the police without ascertaining the truth, foisted false case against this respondent. This respondent is not aware that the deceased was a student and he used to assist the petitioner No.1. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners, rather this respondent incurred huge amount towards his treatment and repairing of his motorcycle. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

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

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to

rash and negligent riding of the rider of

Motor Cycle bearing No.TS03 EA9087

resulting in death of Udutha

Krishnakar?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for

compensation, if so, at what rate?

(3) To what relief?

5.In support of the claim of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs-A1 to A6 and got examined eye witness as PW2. On behalf of the respondent, the respondent himself examined as RW1 and got marked Exs-B1 to B9 and got examined RW2.

6.Heard both sides. Perused the material placed.

5 OF 13

MVOP NO.358 OF 2018

7. ISSUE NO. 1 :Whether the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent riding of the rider of Motor Cycle bearing No.TS03 EA9087

resulting in death of Udutha Krishnakar?

The case of the petitioners are that the petitioners are the parents and sisters of the deceased/Udutha Krishnakar. The deceased was B.Sc.,

Agriculture student and he used to assist his father in the agricultural works.

8.It is the further case of the petitioners that on 4.8.2017 the deceased/Udutha Krishnakar and his villager Bashaboina Ashoka were went to Gollapally village from Gopalapuram village by his Motorcycle bearing

No.AP36 A8580 and at about 23.30 hours when the deceased reached at the outskirts of Gopalapuram village, meantime one Motorcycle bearing No.TS03

EA9087 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased in opposite direction, resulting the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries.

Immediately, the deceased was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal and the deceased was succumbed to injuries on 5.8.2017 while undergoing treatment.

10.It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by respondent.

11.The learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the accident was occurred due to sheer negligence of the deceased, as he rode the motorcycle in drunken state and there is no negligence on the part of he 6 OF 13

MVOP NO.358 OF 2018 respondent, as such, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

12.In this case, the petitioner No.1 as PW1 filed his chief affidavit reiterating the averments made in the petition and in support of his contentions, he filed Ex-A1, which is certified copy of FIR along with complaint. On perusal of the said complaint, it was given by PW1 narrating the nature of the accident occurred and Ex-A2 is the certified copy of inquest report and it shows that during inquest it was resolved by all the inquest panchas and the mediators that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident and he also got marked Ex-A4/certified copy of postmortem examination report which also shows that due to head injury the deceased died. Further as per the certified copy of charge sheet i.e. Ex-A5 reveals that the police Duggondi registered the case and after investigation filed a charge sheet concluding that the driver of the crime vehicle was responsible for the accident.

13.Besides that the petitioners also examined one Thimmapuram Mohan

Rao, who alleged to be eye witness to the accident as PW2 and his evidence discloses that he saw the accident occurred on 4.8.2017 at about 23.30 hours and the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of

Motor Cycle bearing No.TS03 EA9087 and the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died while undergoing treatment at MGM Hospital, Warangal. In the cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the respondent, he deposed 7 OF 13

MVOP NO.358 OF 2018 that he is not eye witness to the accident. Hence, the evidence of PW2 is not useful to the case of the petitioners.

14.Per contra, the respondent himself examined as RW1 and got marked

Exs-B1 to B9. The respondent has taken a plea that he received injuries in the accident, as the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. Though, he filed copy of complaint given to the police Duggondi, but it is not an authenticated copy and there is no seal or acknowledgment of receipt of the report by the police and it was not marked.

Moreover, in the essentiality certificate which was marked as Ex-B7, it was mentioned that the respondent received head injury in road traffic accident.

But, there is no proof to show that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased. In Ex-A5/CC of charge sheet, the respondent is shown as accused. The injuries received by the respondent is not disputed by the petitioners and the complaint/Ex-A1 itself reveals the same and the burden lies on the respondent to prove that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased. Though, the respondent filed Exs-B1 to B9, but they are no way helpful to the case of the respondent that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased.

15.The respondent further adduced the oral evidence of RW2, who is alleged to be pillion rider on the motorcycle of the respondent. There is no whisper about RW2 in Ex-A1 and moreover in Ex-A5/CC of charge sheet, he 8 OF 13

MVOP NO.358 OF 2018 was not cited as eye witness and pillion rider on the motorcycle of the respondent. In the cross-examination, RW2 admitted that the respondent is his friend. Therefore, there is every possibility of deposing in favour of the respondent. Hence, the evidence of RW2 is also no way helpful to the case of the respondent.

16.Therefore, the evidence of PW1 coupled with medical record and crime record reveals about the involvement of the said crime vehicle and the deceased sustained injuries in the accident and died while undergoing treatment and the respondent failed to rebut the case of the petitioners.

Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioners and

against the respondents.

17.ISSUE NO.2: Whether the pe titioners are entitled for compensation, if so, at what rate?

The petitioners herein are the parents and sisters of the deceased.

PW1, in his evidence had asserted the petitioners relationship with the deceased. The said fact is not seriously disputed by the respondent. It is settled law that such claimants are entitled to compensation. The petitioners asserted that the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident.

Ex-A2/CC of inquest report and Ex-A4/CC of postmortem report show the age of the deceased as 22 years. The petitioners asserted that the deceased was

B.Sc. Agricultural Student, but no proof was filed by the petitioners.

9 OF 13

MVOP NO.358 OF 2018

18.Looking at the future prospects of a graduate in Agriculture, on a reasonable hypothesis, it is opined that the deceased would have earned

Rs.4,000/- per month and annual income comes to Rs.48,000/- (Rs.4,000/- X 12). As per the claim petition, the surnames of the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are different with that of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, which shows that the petitioner

Nos.3 and 4 might have married. Hence, the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are not dependents on the deceased, as such they are not entitled for any compensation. The deceased was a bachelor and as per SARLA VERMA’s case, if the deceased was a bachelor 50% has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, taking 50% of his earnings towards personal expenses, which comes to Rs.24,000/- (Rs.48,000/- X 50%).

Therefore, the contribution to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 comes to Rs.24,000/- (Rs.48,000/- minus Rs.24,000/-) per annum. The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per Column No.4 of the table given in SARLA VERMA’s case cited above and the appropriate multiplier for the age group between 21-25 is ‘18’. The deceased being aged 22 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is `18’. The above loss of annual dependency arrived at Rs.24,000/- if multiplied by the appropriate multiplier `18’ fixed supra, the compensation under the head `loss of dependency’ comes to Rs.4,32,000- 00 (Rupees Four lakhs thirty two thousand only) (Rs.24,000/- X 18) and the said amount is awarded to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as compensation under the head of loss of dependency.

10 OF 13

MVOP NO.358 OF 2018

19.The aspects of non-pecuniary damages mentioned in SANTOSH DEVI

vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS (2012 (6)

SCC 421),have been reviewed in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY’s case cited above, reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-,

Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

20.The aspects now to be considered here are under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore, in the light of the said decision, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are awarded Rs.15,000-00 towards loss of estate and

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

21.In all, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to the following compensation amounts as under:

1.Compensation under the head of lossRs.4,32,000-00 of dependency

2.Compensation towards loss of estateRs. 15,000-00

3.CompensationtowardsfuneralRs. 15,000-00 expenses

TOTAL: Rs.4,62,000-00

22.In the facts and circumstances and under the present law, the petitioners are not entitled to any other compensation amounts and the rest of the claim is disallowed.

11 OF 13

MVOP NO.358 OF 2018

23.It is held in Issue No.1 that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent riding of Motorcycle bearing No.TS03 EA9087 by the respondent, resulting in the death of the deceased. Hence, the respondent being driver-cum-owner of the said vehicle is liable to pay compensation of

Rs.4,62,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs sixty two thousand only) to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 with costs and interest.

Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioners

and against the respondents.

24.ISSUE NO.3: To what relief?

In view of the findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2, the petition filed by the petitioners have to be allowed.

25.IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs, awarding a compensation of Rs.4,62,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs sixty two thousand only) with future interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The rest of the claim of the petitioners is disallowed without costs.

The petition against the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 is dismissed.

The respondent is hereby directed to deposit the said compensation amount within one month from today.

The respondent shall bear their own costs.

12 OF 13

MVOP NO.358 OF 2018

On such deposit, the awarded compensation amount shall be apportioned, as follows:

Petitioner No.1 Father Rs.2,31,000-00

Petitioner No.2 Mother Rs.2,31,000-00

The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares withaccrued interest and costs of the petition.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 6th day of November, 2023)

Sd/- Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:

PW1 -Udutha Rajaiah PW2 -Thimmapuram Mohan Rao

FOR RESPONDENTS:

RW1 -Basaboina Rajanna RW2 -Mamindla Iylaiah 13 OF 13

MVOP NO.358 OF 2018

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex-A1 is the certified copy of FIR with complaint. Ex-A2 is the certified copy of inquest report. Ex-A3 is the certified copy of MVI report of crime vehicle. Ex-A4 is the certified copy of postmortem report. Ex-A5 is the certified copy of charge sheet. Ex-A6 is the certified copy of crime details form.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex-B1 is the attested copy of plasma glucose estimation report, dated 5.8.2017. Ex-B2 is the attested copy of advance cash receipts (2 Nos.) for Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- dated 5.8.2017. Ex-B3 is the attested copy of clinical biochemistry issued by Guardian Multi Specialty Hospital, Warangal, dated 7.8.2017. Ex-B4 is the attested copy of discharge cash receipt No.2017002432 for Rs.40,000/- dated 12.8.2017. Ex-B5 is the attested copy of final bill, dated 12.8.2017 for Rs.75,400/- issued by Guardian Hospital, Warangal. Ex-B6 is the attested copy of total consolidated bill for Rs.86,233/- dated 12.8.2017 issued by Guardian Hospital, Warangal. Ex-B7 is the attested copy of Essentiality and Emergency Certificate, dated 14.8.2017 issued by Guardian Hospital, Warangal. Ex-B8 is the attested copy of discharge summary, dated 12.8.2017 issued by Guardian Hospital, Warangal, vide I.P.No.02136/2017. Ex-B9 is the original cash bill for Rs.11,315/- pertaining to the motorcycle bearing No.TS03 EA9087, dated 20.11.2017.

Sd/- Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

1 OF 10

MVOP NO.422 OF 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HANUMAKONDA

Monday, this the 6 th day of November, 2023

PRESENT: Smt.T.Jaya Laxmi,

Chairman, MACT-cum- I-Additional District Judge,

Hanumakonda.

M.V.O.P.NO. 422 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

Chennaboina Raju…Petitioner

AND

1.Dasari Sai @ Sai Kumar

2.B.Ramana…Respondents

This Original Petition came up before me for final hearing on 2.11.2023 in the presence of Sri G.Mallikarjun, Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte; upon hearing and on consideration of the material evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till date, this Tribunal made the following:

:: A W A R D ::

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166(1)(a) of M.V.

Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, claiming a compensation of

Rs.6,00,000/- towards injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 6.2.2020 at about 18.00 hours at Chalivagu Project

Bridge, Koppula village, Shayampet Mandal, Warangal Rural District.

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

(i)That the petitioner is resident of Koppula village, Shayampet Mandal,

Warangal Rural District and worked as Advocate Clerk and also worked as 2 OF 10

MVOP NO.422 OF 2020

Car driver and that the petitioner is an agriculturist having agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas in Sy.No.183/C/3/1 and Ac.1-00 gunta in

Sy.No.183/C/3/2/3/1/1/2 totaling to Ac.1-20 guntas situated at Pedda

Kodepaka village, Shayampet Mandal and he belongs to Mudiraj caste and doing his caste profession too and used to earn Rs.2,00,000/- per annum on agriculture, Rs.15,000/- per month on his caste profession and Rs.10,000/- per month as Advocate Clerk-cum-car driver and contributing the same for the maintenance of his family.

(ii)That on 6.2.2020 in the afternoon hours the petitioner and his wife/Chennaboina Radhika went to Parkal on Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle bearing

No.TS24 3301 to bring material and clothes in view of saree function of their daughter and after purchasing the same, they were returning to the house and at about 18.00 hours when they reached near Chalivagu Project Bridge,

Koppula village, in the meantime one Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motorcycle bearing No.AP37 AZ2263 (for short crime vehicle) driven by its rider came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner in opposite direction, resulting they fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The petitioner sustained injuries i.e. (1) Grade-III compound fracture of proximal tibia of right leg, (2) grievous injury on right leg foot, (3) grievous injury on back side of the right hand and other injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the accident, they were shifted to Guardian

Hospital, Warangal, for treatment.

3 OF 10

MVOP NO.422 OF 2020

(iii)On the complaint made by the wife of the petitioner, the police

Shayampet registered a case in Cr.No.11/2020 and after investigation, the police filed charge sheet under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motorcycle bearing No.AP37 AZ2263.

(iv)It is further averred that the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient vide

I.P.No.439/2020 on 6.2.2020 in Guardian Hospital, Warangal, where

Dr.P.Kaliprasad Rao, Orthopedic Surgeon conducted operation and debridement under SA and ilizarov ring fixation under SA on 12.2.2020 and 14 stitches were done on tibia and 12 stitches were done on back side of right hand and treated with various diagnosis by taking X-rays up to 17.2.2020.

Later, the petitioner was taken treatment under Dr.V.Ramesh, Dermatologist and Dr.N.Srinivas Reddy, Orthopedic Surgeon. While discharging the petitioner, the doctor advised him to take complete bed rest and to have periodical medical check-up. Accordingly, the petitioner has taken follow up treatment and consumed medicines as prescribed by the doctors and taken bed rest. During the period of treatment, the petitioner was incurred

Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment and the petitioner lost his earning of Rs.2,70,000/- during the period of bed rest.

(v)It is further averred that due to fracture injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner is unable to walk any distance, unable to sit and stand properly, unable to go to natural calls without attendant, unable to lift any weights, unable to do any work, unable to bend his right hand fingers, unable 4 OF 10

MVOP NO.422 OF 2020 to drive any vehicles, unable to do his agricultural operations and his right leg was shortened, as such the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability and his future earning capacity was badly effected and therefore, the petitioner is claiming Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the crime vehicle i.e.

respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 is the owner of crime vehicle.

Hence, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

3. Though after receipt of the summons, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to attend before the Court, as such they were set ex-parte.

4. In support of the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs-A1 to A5 and the doctor who treated the petitioner as PW2 and got marked Ex-X1 through Advocate-Commissioner.

5.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

6.Now the point for consideration is that:

“Whether the accident on 6.2.2020 at about 18.00 hours at Chalivagu Project Bridge, Koppula Village, Shayampet Mandal, Warangal Rural District was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motorcycle bearing No.AP37 AZ2263 by its driver i.e. respondent No.1 and in that accident, the petitioner sustained Grade-III compound fracture of proximal tibia of right leg, grievous injury on right leg foot, grievous injury on back side of the right hand and other injuries all over the body and therefore the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner”?

5 OF 10

MVOP NO.422 OF 2020

7. POINT:The case of the petitioner is that on 6.2.2020 in the afternoon hours the petitioner and his wife/Chennaboina Radhika went to

Parkal on Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No.TS24 3301 to bring material and clothes in view of saree function of their daughter and after purchasing the same, they were returning to the house and at about 18.00 hours when they reached near Chalivagu Project Bridge, Koppula village, in the meantime one Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motorcycle bearing No.AP37 AZ2263 driven by its rider came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner in opposite direction, resulting they fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The petitioner sustained injuries i.e.

(1) Grade-III compound fracture of proximal tibia of right leg, (2) grievous injury on right leg foot, (3) grievous injury on back side of the right hand and other injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the accident, they were shifted to Guardian Hospital, Warangal, for treatment. On the complaint made by the wife of the petitioner, the police Shayampet registered a case in

Cr.No.11/2020 and after investigation, the police filed charge sheet under

Section 338 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of Hero Honda Splendor

Plus Motorcycle bearing No.AP37 AZ2263.

8.The petitioner in support of his claim examined himself as PW1 and he filed the chief-affidavit which is nothing but replica of his pleadings. He also filed Exs-A1 to A5 in support of his claim. Ex-A1 is the certified copy of FIR along with complaint. Ex-A2 is the certified copy of injury certificate. Ex-A3 is the certified copy of charge sheet. Ex-A4 is the certified copy of discharge 6 OF 10

MVOP NO.422 OF 2020 card. Ex-A5 is one medical bill. The doctor who treated PW1 was examined as PW2. PW2 the Orthopedic Surgeon of Guardian Hospital, Warangal deposed about the treatment given by him to the injuries to PW1 and the case-sheet was marked as Ex-X1. PW2 further deposed that the petitioner undergone surgery on 12.2.2020 for the fracture tibia right leg and the petitioner was discharged on 17.2.2020 with an advise of bed rest for six months. He further deposed that due to the injuries, the petitioner will bare difficulty in sitting, standing and squatting position.

9.The oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex-A3 proved that the respondent No.1 was charged under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code and

Sections 181 and 196 of M.V. Act and the respondent No.1 drove the crime vehicle without having any driving license and the respondent No.2 permitted the respondent No.1 to drove the crime vehicle though knowing that the respondent No.1 is not having valid driving license and also there is no insurance policy to the crime vehicle and that the petitioner sustained injuries and Ex-A2/certified copy of injury certificate and Ex-X1 also establishes that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.

10.As per the case of the petitioner, he worked as Advocate Clerk-cum-car driver and also an agriculturist having agricultural lands and used to earn

Rs.2,00,000/- per annum on agriculture, Rs.15,000/- per month on his caste profession and Rs.10,000/- as Advocate Clerk-cum-car driver. But the petitioner did not adduce any evidence with regard to earning capacity except 7 OF 10

MVOP NO.422 OF 2020 his oral evidence. From the circumstances of the case and taking into consideration of age of the petitioner, it can conclude that the petitioner is an agriculturist and doing his caste profession and might be earned Rs.10,000/- per month. PW2 the doctor deposed that he advised the patient while discharging to take bed rest for six months. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.60,000-00 (Rs.10,000/- X 6 months) towards loss of earnings (past) due to the accident. Ex-A5 is one medical bill for Rs.1,704/- which was incurred by the petitioner towards his medical expenses, though the petitioner is claiming Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses, but did not file any proof to that effect and moreover PW2 the doctor who treated the petitioner deposed that the patient took treatment under Arogya Sri at free of cost, so that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.1,700-00 towards medical expenses under Ex-A5.

Further, the petitioner is also entitled to an amount of Rs.29,300-00 towards pain, suffering and extra-nourishment and Rs.5,000-00 towards transportation charges. The petitioner sustained fracture of tibia right leg compound and as per the evidence of PW2 the petitioner will have difficulty in sitting, standing and squatting position, as such, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of

Rs.64,000-00 towards disability.

11.The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with Exs-A1 to A5 and Ex-X1 proved that on 6.2.2020 at about 18.00 hours at Chalivagu Project Bridge,

Koppula village, Shayampet Mandal, Warangal Rural District due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 as driver of Hero Honda Splendor

Plus Motorcycle bearing No.AP37 AZ2263 without having valid driving license 8 OF 10

MVOP NO.422 OF 2020 dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner, resulting the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The case of the petitioner is unrebutted and unchallenged, since the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex parte.

12.Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts:

1Compensation under the headRs.60,000-00 of loss of earnings (past) 2Medical expensesRs. 1,700-00 3Compensation under the headRs.29,300-00 of pain, suffering and extra- nourishment 4Compensation under the headRs. 5,000-00 of transportation charges 5CompensationtowardsRs.64,000-00 disability

Total: Rs.1,60,000-00

13.In view of the above discussion, the respondent No.1 being driver and the respondent No.2 being owner of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One lakh sixty thousand only) to the petitioner with costs and interest.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

14.IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One lakh sixty thousand only) with future interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from 9 OF 10

MVOP NO.422 OF 2020 the date of petition till the date of deposit. The rest of the claim of the petitioner is disallowed without costs.

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 be and are hereby directed jointly and severally to deposit the said compensation amount within one month from today.

The respondents shall bear their own costs.

On deposit of the awarded amount with costs and interest, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount at once.

The petitioner shall pay the exempted Court-fee in respect of the claim amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and on such deposit, the decree shall be prepared.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 6th day of November, 2023)

Sd/- Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

10 OF 10

MVOP NO.422 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

PW1 -Chennaboina Raju PW2 -Dr.P.Kaliprasad

FOR RESPONDENTS:

None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex-A1 is the certified copy of FIR along with complaint. Ex-A2 is the certified copy of injury certificate. Ex-A3 is the certified copy of charge sheet. Ex-A4 is the certified copy of discharge card. Ex-A5 is the one medical bill.

Ex-X1 is the original case-sheet maintained by Guardian Hospital.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

- NIL -

Sd/- Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

1 OF 9

CMA NO.69 OF 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, LAND REFORMS APPELLATE

TRIBUNAL-CUM-I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HANUMAKONDA

Saturday, this the 28th day of October, 2023

PRESENT:Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi, Chairman, LRAT-cum- I-Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda.

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1.Thumula Kanakaiah (DIED per LRs)

2.Thumula Sampath

3.Yeshaboina Mallamma

4.Gente Saramma

5.Thumula Lachamma

6.Raagam Komalatha

7.Varkutam Rajitha

8.Yeshaboina Renuka (Appellant Nos.5 to 8 impleaded as per Orders in I.A.No.671of 2022,…Appellants/

dated 11.10.2022)Def.Nos.1,2,4&6

AND

1.Thumula Mallesham…Respondent/ Plaintiff

2.Thumula Iylamma

3.Jurru Lachamma…Respondents/

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal Def.Nos.3,5,7&8/

5.The Tahsildar, Dharmasagar Mandal.Proforma parties

THIS CMA IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER AND DECREE, DATED

7.8.2018 PASSED IN I.A.NO.108 OF 2017 IN O.S.NO.45 OF 2017 ON THE

FILE OF ERSTWHILE I-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT AT

WARANGAL

BETWEEN:

Thumula Mallesham…Petitioner/ Plaintiff AND 2 OF 9

CMA NO.69 OF 2021

1.Thumula Kanakaiah

2.Thumula Sampath

3.Thumula Iylamma

4.Yeshaboina Mallamma

5.Jurru Lachamma

6.Gente Saramma

7.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal

8.The Tahsildar, Dharmasagar Mandal…Respondents/ (Res.Nos.7 and 8 are proforma parties)Defendants

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is coming up before me for final hearing on 20.10.2023 in the presence of Sri M.Sadasivudu, learned

Counsel for the appellants/respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6/defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 and of Sri Syed Jafar Ahmed, learned Counsel for the respondent

No.1/petitioner/plaintiff and upon perusing the grounds of appeal and material records of lower Court and hearing the arguments of the said Advocates, the matter is having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court has made the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 104(1)(i) read with Order XLI Rule 1(5) of The Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants/respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6/defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 being aggrieved by the Orders passed by the learned erstwhile I-Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No.108/2017 in O.S.No.45/2017, dated 7.8.2018.

2.To avoid confusion that the parties arrayed in the lower Court are hereunder referred, as petitioner/plaintiff and respondents/defendants.

3 OF 9

CMA NO.69 OF 2021

3.The respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner/plaintiff in I.A.No.108/2017 in O.S.No.45/2017 and he filed the said petition under Order 40 Rule 1 of The

Code of Civil Procedure praying the Court to appoint a Receiver for the management of the suit-schedule “B” properties pending disposal of the suit and also to pass an ad-interim orders to the same effect pending service of notices on the respondents/defendants.

4.The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he filed the suit against the respondents, who are his mother, brother and sisters for partition for his separate share in the joint family properties. Originally the said properties belong to Thumula Gattaiah, who is his father and he was owner of the agricultural lands total an extent of Ac.9-07 guntas out of Sy.Nos.1430, 1470, 1476, 1428and 1486 and house bearing No.1-28 situated at Shallapalli village, Dharmasagar Mandal, Warangal District. His father acquired the said properties in the partition effected among his brothers. All the joint family members are enjoying the same and same are forming part of their joint family properties. In the year 2010 for his livelihood he left to Saudi Arabia and his wife and children resided along with other joint family and shared the fruits of joint family properties for some period, later, his wife felt inconvenience, as such, she went to her parents house and residing there.

However, she has been receiving the yield and after sometime, the respondents stopped to give the yield. Meanwhile, in the year 2015, he returned and came to know that the respondent No.1 in collusion with the 4 OF 9

CMA NO.69 OF 2021

respondent No.2, who is his son, got entered their names in revenue records exclusively and thereafter, he demanded for partition of the schedule properties, but they denied the same and further filed the Caveat Petition, therefore, having no other option, filed the suit for partition. Since the respondents alone are cultivating the suit-schedule properties, as he returned, there is no work for him to attend and even the respondent No.1 became aged and the respondent No.2 is living in Warangal and attending private service, therefore, the said persons also not cultivating the said properties. It is better to appoint the Receiver for better management of the said properties and prayed to appoint the Receiver to manage the schedule-B properties pending disposal of the suit.

5.The respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 filed counter stating that the present petition is not maintainable as the suit is filed for partition and petitioner has no right over the suit-schedule properties and he is not entitled for the same.

The petitioner filed the present petition for wrongful gain having knowledge that he has no right over the properties. In fact, they are the absolute owners of the properties and the petitioner has no right over the same. In a suit for partition before passing of preliminary decree, appointment of Receiver is not maintainable and there is no danger to the properties. When the suit was not decreed preliminarily and decided right and liabilities of the parties, the appointment of Receiver for administration of the properties is not tenable and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5 OF 9

CMA NO.69 OF 2021

6.On behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff, no oral evidence was adduced, but got marked Exs-P1 to P6. On behalf of the respondents/defendants, no oral evidence was adduced and no documents were marked.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

8.The trial Court after considering the material on record, allowed

I.A.No.108/2017 in O.S.No.45/2017 and there shall be no order as to costs.

9.Aggrieved by the Order of the learned erstwhile I-Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Warangal, the appellants have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

mainly on the ground that the trial Court failed to discuss the vital evidence of documentary proof as per the point framed and failed to discuss and analyze the evidence on record of either side and also failed to consider the citations submitted by the appellants and as per several verdicts in a suit for partition the Receiver appointment is not maintainable and when all the parties are having equal rights, the Order 40 Rule 1 of CPC is not suppose to be allowed.

10.Heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 filed case-laws.

11.Now, the point for consideration is “whether the Order passed by the

learned erstwhile I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in

I.A.No.108/2017 in O.S.No.45/2017, dated 7.8.2018 needs interference or

modification by this Court”?

6 OF 9

CMA NO.69 OF 2021

12.POINT:The main suit is filed for partition. The relationship in between the parties are admitted. The petitioner/plaintiff is claiming that the suit-schedule property is the property of his father Thumula Gattaiah, who inherited the same during the partition. The defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 are claiming right over the suit-schedule property exclusively belong to them. The burden lies on the petitioner/plaintiff to prove prima facie title of Thumula

Gattaiah i.e. who is father of the petitioner/plaintiff. The pahani filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for the year 1974-1975 which was marked as Ex-P2 shows that the Sy.No.1428 is in the name of Thumula Chandraiah, Sy.No.1430 is in the name of Thumula Iylaiah, Sy.No.1470 is in the name of Thumula

Kanakaiah and Sy.No.1486 is in the name of Thumula Chandraiah.

Ex-P3/pahani for the year 1978-1979 also shows that the Sy.No.1428 stands in the name of Thumula Chandraiah, Sy.No.1430 stands in the name of

Thumula Iylaiah, Sy.No.1470 stands in the name of Thumula Kanakaiah,

Sy.No.1486 stands in the name of Thumula Chandraiah and Sy.No.1476 an extent of Ac.11-01 gunta stands in the name of Thumula Gattaiah, s/o

Mallaiah. Ex-P2 and Ex-P3 are the oldest pahanies filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, but none of the certified copies of pahanies show that

Thumula Gattaiah is the pattedar of the said lands except Sy.No.1476 which is not the schedule property, but the Item No.3 is Sy.No.1476/A/2 an extent of

Ac.1-15 guntas.

7 OF 9

CMA NO.69 OF 2021

13.Ex-P1 i.e. certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-2010 shows that the Sy.No.1476/A/2 i.e. Item No.3 of the Schedule-B property an extent of

Ac.1-15 guntas Thumula Kanakaiah i.e. defendant No.1 is the pattedar and the Sy.No.1486/A/2 i.e. Item No.5 of the Schedule-B property Thumula

Sampath i.e. defendant No.2 is the pattedar. Ex-P4 is the certified copy of the pahani for the year 1990-1991, the Sy.No.1428 stands in the name of

Thumula Chandraiah as pattedar and the possessors are the Thumula

Kanakaiah, Sampath and Venkataiah and so also in Sy.No.1430 Thumula

Iylaiah is the pattedar and Thumula Veeraiah, Kanakaiah, Venkataiah and

Gattaiah are the possessors and Sy.No.1470, the pattedar is Thumula

Kanakaiah and the possessors are the Thumula Kanakaiah, Thumula

Gattaiah and others. The Sy.No.1476 an extent of Ac.11-01 gunta stands in the name of Thumula Gattaiah and the possessors are the Narne Rajaiah,

Thumula Venkataiah and Thumula Kanakaiah. The Sy.No.1486 Thumula

Chandraiah is the pattedar and Thumula Kanakaiah, Venkataiah and

Sampath are the possessors. Ex-P5 is the pahani for the 1995-1996 in which

Thumula Chandraiah was the pattedar and Thumula Kanakaiah and others are the possessors in Sy.No.1428. For Sy.No.1430 Thumula Iylaiah is the pattedar and Thumula Iylaiah and others are the possessors. For Sy.No.1476

Thumula Gattaiah was shown as pattedar and also possessor for Ac.11-01 gunta. As per Ex-P6 pahani for the year 2009-2010 the Thumula Gattaiah was shown as pattedar, but not the lands of the Schedule-B property as 8 OF 9

CMA NO.69 OF 2021

claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff is claiming equal shares in Schedule-A and Schedule-B consists of Item Nos.1 to 5 and seeking the appointment of Receiver with regard to Schedule-B property.

14.The schedule-B property consists of five items. The pahanies filed by the petitioner/plaintiff only for Sy.No.1476 an extent of Ac.11-01 gunta, the pattedar was shown as Thumula Gattaiah in the year 1975-1976 and so also in the year 2009-2010. The burden lies on the petitioner/plaintiff to prove the prima facie title of Thumula Gattaiah over the Item Nos.1 to 5 of the schedule properties, but the pahanies filed by the petitioner/plaintiff does not disclose the same except the land in Sy.No.1476 which is not covered any of the items of the schedule-B property. In the schedule, though it was shown bifurcation numbers, but it does not disclose in the pahanies.

15.Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff failed to establish the prima facie title of Thumula Gattaiah over the Schedule-B property which consists of Item

Nos.1 to 5. When the petitioner/plaintiff failed to establish the prima facie title of Thumula Gattaiah through whom he is claiming the title over the schedule property and so that not entitled for the appointment of Receiver. Therefore, the case-laws i.e. K.Mangamma vs. K.Brahmareddy reported in 1989(1)

Law Summary page 30 and Chundru Srinivasa Rao and another vs.

Chundru Venkata Rao and another reported in 1992(2) Law Summary

page 198 submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 herein 9 OF 9

CMA NO.69 OF 2021

are not applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, the trial Court came to a wrong conclusion in allowing the petition. Hence, the Order of the trial Court,

dated 7.8.2018 is liable to be set-aside.

This point is answered in favour of appellants and against the

respondent No.1.

16.IN THE RESULT, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, setting aside the Orders of the trial Court, dated 7.8.2018 and consequently,

I.A.No.108 of 2017 in O.S.No.45 of 2017 on the file of erstwhile I-Additional

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Warangal, is dismissed. Both parties are directed

to bear their own costs throughout.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of October, 2023)

Sd/- Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi

CHAIRMAN,

LAND REFORMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-CUM-

I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR APPELLANTS : FOR RESPONDENTS :

NoneNone

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR APPELLANTS : FOR RESPONDENTS :

- NIL -- NIL -

Sd/- Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi

CHAIRMAN,

LAND REFORMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-CUM-

I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

Copy to the learned erstwhile I-Additional Senior Civil Judge Warangal,

now Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda.