T.Venkateshwara Reddy

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CUM - III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, (F.T.C), MAHABUBNAGAR AT

GADWAL

Wednesday this the 17th day of April, 2013

PRESENT:- Sri.T.Venkateswara Reddy, M.Com.B.L., III Additional District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C), Mahabubnagar At Gadwal.

O.P.No. 554 of 2003

Between:- Venkateswar Reddy S/o Laxma Reddy, Age: 24 years, Occupation:Agriculture, Resident of Narwa Mandal, Mahabubnagar Distirct.

….. Petitioner

And

1. G.Venkat Reddy S/o G.Kurma Reddy, Age: 32 years, Owner of Suzuki Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-22-B-5030, Resident of Yamki village of Narwa Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, RS Road, KUrnool (Policy No.1501/31/01/09510, valid from 4.2.2002 to 3.2.2003) …Respondents ********

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing on 10.4.2013 in the presence of Sri E.Giridhar, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri S.Premnath Goud, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till today the court delivered the following.

O R D E R

1. This is the claim petition filed by the petitioner under section 166 of

Motor Vehicles Act for a compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor accident.

2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the averments made in the petition is to the following effect:-

3. On 18.11.2002 at 3.00 AM the petitioner was traveling in a motor

Cycle bearing No.AP-22-B-5030 as a pillion rider. When the motor cycle reached near the limits of Chitlapally gate, the driver of the motor cycle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and as a result the motor cycle fell down. The petitioner sustained injuries. On the basis of the complaint of the petitioner Police of Kodangal Police Station registered a case in Crime NO.12 of 2002 under section 337 IPC and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against the driver of the motor cycle under section 338 IPC. The petitioner sustained fracture to his left hand humorous. The petitioner was shifted to SVS

Hospital Mahabubnagar the petitioner undergone surgery and discharged from the

Hospital after 15 days. The respondent No.1 is the driver cum owner of the motor cycle and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said motor cycle. Both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation amount payable to the petitioners.

4. The respondent No.1 remained exparte

5. The respondent No.2 filed the counter alleging that the alleged crime vehicle was not involved in the incident. The person who drove the vehicle at the time of accident was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive such vehicle. The respondent No.1 is not the owner of the vehicle and the respondent No.1 has no insurable interest. The incident took place due to the negligence of the petitioner and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. The pillion rider is not entitled for any compensation as per the rules and regulations. The claim of the petitioner is highly excessive. The respondent NO.2 denied the manner in which the incident happened as mentioned in the petition. The respondent No.2 denied the allegations mentioned in the petition which are not specifically admitted by the respondent No.2 in his counter.

6. On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:-

1. Whether the accident occurred on 18-11-2002 at 0300 hours in the limits of Chitlapally gate due to rash and negligent driving of Suzuki motor cycle bearing No.AP-22-B-5030 by its driver, and whether it resulted in causing injuries to the petitioner.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek for compensation. If so, to which extent and from whom

3. To what relief.

7. The petitioner got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs A1 to A6.

8. PW.1 is the petitioner, PW.2 is Doctor working in SVS Medical

Hospital, Mahabubnagar

9. Ex.A1 is certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2 is Certified copy of wound certificate, Ex.A3 is certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A4 is Expenditure certificate,

Ex.A5 is Medical bills, Ex.A6 is X-ray films (3 in number).

10. On the other hand the respondent No.2 has not placed any oral evidence Ex.B1 copy of policy is marked for the respondent No.2 by consent.

11. The respondent No.2 filed a petition under section 170 of Motor

Vehicles Act and the same was allowed.

12. Heard the arguments submitted by both side counsel:- 13.ISSUE No.1:-

The petitioner is the injured. The case of the petitioner is that on 18.11.2002 at about 3.00 AM while the petitioner was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing No.AP-22-B-5030 as a pillion rider and when the motor cycle reached within the limits of Chitlapally gate, the respondent No.1 who is the rider of the motor cycle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and as a result the motor cycle fell down and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The further case of the petitioner is that Police of Kodangal Police Station registered a case in

Crime NO.12 of 2002 against the respondent No.1 and after completion of investigation Police filed the charge sheet under section 338 IPC against the respondent NO.1. Thus the case of the petitioner is that due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1, the incident happened and the petitioner sustained injuries in the incident.

14. To substantiate the contentions of the petitioner that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent

NO.1 the petitioner is relying on his evidence and on Ex.A1 FIR and

Ex.A3 charge sheet.

15. On the other hand the contention of the respondent No.2 is that the incident happened on 18.11.2002 as per the case of the petitioner. But the petitioner lodged the complaint about the incident on 2.2.2003. Thus there is a delay of 75 days in lodging complaint about the incident and there is no explanation for the said delay. In view of the said delay it can be safely said that the petitioner in collusion with the respondent NO.1 and Police foisted a false case for the purpose of compensation. In support of the above contention the respondent No.2 relied on the following decisions.

1. Decision of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in Bajaj Allianz General

Insurance Company Limited represented by its Divisional Manager Vs., Bhumireddy

Venkata and Another reported in 2009(4) T.A.C 484.

In the above decision His LordShip Held that “the object of Section 158(6) of the Act is to ensure prompt and fruitful investigation, to avoid false and fraudulent claims and also to safeguard the interests of the victims of the motor accident. In the instant case, the genuineness of the claim made by the first respondent has to be tested basing on the circumstances in which the private complaint regarding the accident came to be filed before the Magistrate with abnormal delay and the natural course of human behaviour. The significant feature which requires careful consideration is that the first respondent conveniently omitted to mention anything about the delay in lodging the report with the police as well as the delay in filing the complaint before the Magistrate in his claim petition filed before the Tribunal. For the first time in his evidence before the Tribunal he sought to explain the delay stating that it was on account of the promise made by the second respondent to settle the matter. The very fact that the first respondent who is an advocate by profession did not lodge any report with the Police about the accident and filed a private complaint before the

Magistrate with a delay of 53 days indicates that there is every possibility of

collusion between the driver/owner and the first respondent. Since there is abnormal delay in filing the complaint before the Magistrate without informing the

Police about the incident, it is obligatory on the part of the first respondent to examine the driver/owner of the offending vehicle to prove the explanation offered by him that the delay was occasioned only on account of the talks of compromise between the parties. From the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility of the first respondent receiving some amount under the compromise with the driver/owner of the vehicle and filing the claim petition to have undue advantage for extracting some more amount from the appellant/Insurance

Company cannot also altogether be ruled out. All these doubts have to be repelled by the first respondent by adducing cogent evidence, but he did not adduce any satisfactory evidence before the Tribunal to prove that his claim is true and genuine. The Tribunal having arrived at a positive conclusion that the explanation offered by the first respondent regarding the abnormal delay of filing the complaint before the Magistrate is quite unconvincing erroneously held that Ext.A- 1, true copy of FIR and Ex.A-3, true copy of charge sheet disclose negligence on the part of the person who was driving the offending vehicle”.

2. Decision of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in Agnuru Jaya Ramulu Alias

Jaya RAmudu Vs., Mohammed Afzal Miyan and another reported in 2005(2) TAC 781 (A.P.)

In the above decision His LordShip held that when the evidence shows that the claimant did not come to court with clean hands, the claimant should not have been awarded any compensation amount.

16. On the other hand the petitioner relied on the decision of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Ravi Vs., Badrinarayan and others reported in 2011(1) T.A.C 867(S.C).

In the above decision Their Lordships held that the delay in lodging

FIR can not be a ground to deny justice to victim.

17. Coming to the present case, as per the case of the petitioner the incident happened on 18.11.2002 at about 3.00 AM. But the petitioner lodged the complaint about the incident on 2.2.2008. In Ex.A1 FIR the reasons for delay is mentioned as due to treatment for the injuries there is a delay. Ex.A2 is certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner issued by Medical Officer

Government Hospital, Kodangal. As seen from Ex.A2 it is clear that immediately after the incident the petitioner was sent to Government Hospital for treatment by the Station House Officer, Kodangal. As seen from Ex.A2 it very clear that the petitioner was examined by Government Doctor at the request of the Station

House Officer, Kodangal. From this one point is very clear that the petitioner sustained injury on 18.11.2002 and the petitioner was referred to Government

Hospital by Station House Officer, Kodangal Police Station. To the reasons best known to the Police, the Police had not record the statement of the petitioner to know about the incident. For this reason the petitioner can not be penalized. The facts of the present case are totally different with that of the facts of the decision relied on by the respondent No.2. In the present case the petitioner is not a legal expert and is not an advocate therefore we can not expect that the petitioner had knowledge that lodging of complaint is a pre-requisite condition for claiming compensation. As seen from the evidence of PW.2 Doctor it is clear that the petitioner was admitted SVS Hospital Mahabubnagar on 19.11.2002 and was discharged on 19.12.2002. From this it can be said that the petitioner was more interested in getting treatment than lodging complaint before Police. However in

Ex.A1 FIR it is clearly mentioned that the reasons for delay is due to treatment and health condition of the petitioner due to injury. From the following reasons the court comes to a conclusion that the incident happened as stated by the petitioner.

1. The petitioner was examined by the Doctor immediately after the incident.

2. As seen from Ex.A2 wound certificate issued by Government Doctor it is clear that the petitioner was examined by the Government

Doctor immediately after the incident at the instance of Station

House Officer, Kodangal. The reason for delay in lodging FIR is mentioned in Ex.A1 FIR as the petitioner undergone treatment.

3. Since the petitioner is not a legal expert we can not expect that the petitioner had knowledge that filing of complaint is a pre-requisite condition for claiming compensation amount.

4. In view of the evidence of PW.2 Doctor it is very clear that the petitioner was admitted in hospital and undergone surgery. Under these circumstances it can be safely said that the petitioner is more interested in his health condition than Police case. The petitioner is not aware of the niceties of law that lodging of FIR was condition precedent before filing claim petition.

5. When once Ex.A2 wound certificate reveals that the petitioner was examined by the Government Doctor at the request of the Station

House Officer Kodangal it is the duty of the concerned Police to examine the petitioner and in the present case the Police failed to do so and for that purpose the petitioner can not be penalized.

6. The cumulative effect of above said events, the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A3 and non placing of any rebuttal evidence by the respondent to th evidence of PW.1 and Exs A1 to A3 clearly established that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the rider of the motor cycle and the petitioner sustained injury in the incident.

18. In view of above all reasons and following the decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on by the petitioner, this issue is decided in favour

of the petitioner.

19.ISSUE No.2:-

The petitioner is the injured. The respondent NO.1 is the owner of the crime vehicle and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the crime vehicle.

Ex.B1 policy is a package policy and the same was in force as on the date of the incident. Admittedly Ex.B1 policy covers the risk of the pillion rider. The above facts are not in dispute. On issue No.1 it is held that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. Hence the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation amount payable to the petitioner.

20. Coming to the quantum of compensation amount, Ex.A2 is certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon

Government Hospital, Kodangal. In Ex.A2 it is mentioned that the petitioner sustained fracture of left humorous and abrasion over the left lower leg. PW.2 is the Doctor SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar. PW.2 Doctor stated in his evidence that on 19.11.2002 the petitioner was admitted in SVS Hospital with fracture of shaft humorous of M/3rd and L/3rd and the petitioner undergone surgery. The petitioner was discharged on 9.12.2002. From the above evidence of PW.2

Doctor and from Ex.A2 wound certificate it is held that the petitioner sustained fracture injury. Hence a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings. The evidence of PW.2 Doctor is to the effect that Ex.A4 shows expenditure incurred by the petitioner. As seen from Ex.A4 the expenditure certificate Ex.A4 was issued for Rs.15,374/-. Ex.A5 is medical bills.

The petitioner has not filed prescriptions for Ex.A5 medical bills and on the other hand PW.2 Doctor stated in his evidence that the expenditure shown in Ex.A5 is already included in Ex.A4 expenditure certificate. In view of this the court considered only Ex.A4 certificate. Considering the evidence of PW.2 Doctor and in Ex.A4 certificate and considering the evidence of PW.2 Doctor that the petitioner undergone surgery a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards medical expenses and hospital charges. Since the petitioner undergone surgery the petitioner might have been taken rests at least for a period of one month. Hence a sum of Rs.3,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards loss of income during the period of treatment. A sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards transportation charges, attendant charges and extra nourishment charges. Thus the total compensation amount would be

Rs.28,000/-(10,000 + 10,000 + 3,000 + 5,000 = 28,000/-). The break up of compensation amount awarded to the petitioner is as follows

a) Towards pain and sufferings Rs.10,000-00

b) Towards Hospital and Medical charges Rs.10,000-00

c) Loss of income during the period of treatment Rs. 3,000-00

d) Towards transportation, attendant charges Rs. 5,000-00 and extra nourishment charges ---------------- TOTAL: Rs.28,000-00 ----------------

21. In view of above all reasons it is held that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation amount of Rs.28,000/- and this issue is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioner.

22.ISSUE No.3:- In view of my findings on Issues 1 and 2 the petition is to be allowed for a sum of Rs.28,000/-.

In the present case the OP was dismissed for default on 7.12.2007.

Subsequently OP was restored to original file on 27.6.2012 with a condition that the petitioner is not entitled to claim interest from 7.12.2007 to 27.6.2012.

In the result the petition is allowed for Rs.28,000/-(Rupees Twenty eight thousand only) with proportionate costs and with future interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till 7.12.2007 and from 27.6.2012 to till the date of realization of the amount against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two months. The petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount. The advocate fee is fixed at

Rs.500/-.

Dictated to Steno-Typist after transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 17th day of April, 2013.

III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C) Gadwal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PETITIONER:- FOR RESPONDENT

PW.1 Venkateswar Reddy -Nil- PW.2 Dr.Veeraiah Naidu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:-

Ex.A1 is certified copy of FIR Ex.A2 is Certified copy of wound certificate Ex.A3 is certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A4 is Expenditure certificate Ex.A5 is Medical bills Ex.A6 is X-ray films (3 in number).

FOR RESPONDENT

Ex.B1 is copy of policy

III Additional District Judge, [F.T.C.], Gadwal.

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CUM - III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, (F.T.C), MAHABUBNAGAR AT

GADWAL

Wednesday this the 17th day of April, 2013

PRESENT:- Sri.T.Venkateswara Reddy, M.Com.B.L., III Additional District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C), Mahabubnagar At Gadwal.

O.P.No. 554 of 2003

Between:- Venkateswar Reddy S/o Laxma Reddy, Age: 24 years, Occupation:Agriculture, Resident of Narwa Mandal, Mahabubnagar Distirct.

….. Petitioner

And

1. G.Venkat Reddy S/o G.Kurma Reddy, Age: 32 years, Owner of Suzuki Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-22-B-5030, Resident of Yamki village of Narwa Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, RS Road, Kurnool (Policy No.1501/31/01/09510, valid from 4.2.2002 to 3.2.2003) …Respondents

This Original Petition is coming up for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri E.Giridhar, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri S.Premnath Goud, Advocate for Respondent No.2, and Respondent No.1 remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows :

1. That the petition be and hereby is allowed for Rs.28,000/- (Rupees

Twenty eight thousand only) with future interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 26.12.2003 till 7.12.2007 and from 27.6.2012 to till the date of realization of the amount against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

2. That the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with in a period of two months.

3. After deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount.

4. That the respondents do also pay to the petitioner a sum of

Rs.2152=00 towards costs of the petition.

5. That the Advocate fees is fixed at Rs.500/-.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 17th day of April, 2013.

III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, (FTC) Gadwal.

: 2 :

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

Particulars For For For

Petitioner Respondent Respondent No.1 No.2 Stamp on plaint Rs. 101=00 - - (Proportionate costs) Stamp on Vakalat Rs. 2=00 Exparte 2=00

Stamp on process Rs. 42=00 - -

Stamp on petition Rs. 4=00 - -

Stamp on Rs. 3=00 - - documents

Commissioner’s fee Rs.1500=00 - -

Advocate fee Rs. 500=00 - -

Total Rs. 2152=00 - 2=00

III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, (FTC) Gadwal.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE (F.T.C) GADWAL.

Friday this the 12th day of April, 2013.

PRESENT : Sri T.Venkateswara Reddy, M.Com.,B.L., III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, (F.T.C) Gadwal.

Appeal Suit No. 72 of 2012

Between : N.Sai Baba S/o N.Hanmanthu, Resident of Gadwal represented by G.P.A Holder Shaik Sha Vali S/o Mahabub Miya, Age: 49 years, Occupation: Business, Resident of 5-1-37/2, Shair Ali Street, Gadwal Town Proper

…Appellant

And

1. The Commercial Tax Officer,Gadwal Mahabubnagar District

2.The District Collector, Mahabubnagar ….Respondents

On Appeal Under Order XLI Rule 1 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree Dated.17.09.2010 in O.S.No.12/2010 on the file of Senior

Civil Judge Gadwal.

Between:-

N.Sai Baba S/o N.Hanmanthu, Resident of Gadwal represented by G.P.A Holder Shaik Sha Vali S/o Mahabub Miya, Age: 49 years, Occupation: Business, Resident of 5-1-37/2, Shair Ali Street, Gadwal Town Proper ....Plaintif.

AND

1. The Commercial Tax Officer,Gadwal Mahabubnagar District

2. The District Collector, Mahabubnagar … Defendants

Sub :Suit is filed for eviction of the defendant from the plaint scheduled property.

This Appeal suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 3.4.2013 in the presence of Sri K.Ravi Prakash Goud, Advocate for the

Appellant/Plaintiff and Assistant Government Pleader, for the

Respondents/Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till today this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree in OS 12/10 dated 17.9.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge,

Gadwal, whereby and where under, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant No.1 2 from the premises bearing No.1-3-61/5E situate at Bheemnagar,

Gadwal.

2.The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree in OS 12 of 2010 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge dated 17.9.2012.

3.For the sake of convenience the parties herein after referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4.The case of the plaintiff as seen from the averments made in the plaint is to the following effect:-

5.The plaintiff is represented though his GPA in whose favour the plaintiff executed a registered General Power of attorney dated 28.1.2009. The plaintiff is the original owner of the house bearing

NO.1-3-61/5E admeasuring 60 X 50 Feet situate at Bheemnagar

Gadwal. The defendant No.1 is Commercial Tax Officer and the defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff to let out the premises for running for Commercial Tax Office. The plaintiff and the defendant

No.1 entered into an unregistered rental agreement for a period of 11 months commencing from 1.3.2007. The lease period can be extended by mutual consent of the parties with a minimum 5% increase on the existing rent. The defendant No.1 agreed to pay monthly rent of

Rs.22,977/- on or before 5th day of every month. The defendant No.1 is not paying rent as agreed upon and the defendant No.1 is due rent for a period of 12 months. The defendants No.1 damaged the structures of the building. It is not desirable for the plaintiff to continue the lease.

The plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 15.4.2008, 26.6.2008. The plaintiff mentioned in the said notice that the defendant No.1 became willful defaulter in payment of rent. The plaintiff got issued a notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act to the defendant No.1 on 26.11.2009. The defendant No.1 received the said notices and failed 3 to vacate the premises. The plaintiff wants to utilize the premises for his personal use.

6.The defendant No.1 filed the written statement. The defendant No.2 adopts the written statement filed by the defendant

No.1.

7.The case of the defendants is that the rent fixed is paid as per allocation of the budget in the Commercial Tax Office, Gadwal. The rent was paid at the rate of Rs.22,977/- per month up to to march 2010. The defendant No.1 has not altered and damaged the structures in the building. The owner of the building himself got damaged some structures under the guise of providing water facility to the building.

The plaintiff has disconnected the water supply to the building. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the plaintiff has to furnish all the safety measures. But the plaintiff has not provided window panels and glasses to windowes and ventilators till today. In view of that monkeys entered into office after office hours and causing damage to office records. The defendant No.1 has not violated the terms and conditions mentioned in unregistered agreement. The suit of the plaintiff is bad for non issue of notice under section 80 CPC. The plaintiff promised to complete carpenter work within the period of one month. But the plaintiff failed to do the same. With this the defendants stated that the plaintiff has no right to ask the defendant

No.1 to vacate the premises.

8.On the above pleadings the trial court settled the following issues:-

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the suit scheduled house.

2.To what relief.

9.Before trial court on behalf of the plaintiff PWs 1 and 2 are examined and Exs A1 to A7 are marked.

4

10.PW.1 is the plaintiff, PW.2 is the GPA holder of the plaintiff.

11.Ex.A1 is Original General Power of Attorney, dated 28-1- 2009, Ex.A2 is copy of G.O dated 27-9-2009, Ex.A3 is Office copy of legal notice, dated 15-4-2008, Ex.A4 is postal receipts six in number,

Ex.A5 is Office copy of legal notice, dated 26.6.2008, Ex.A6 is Postal acknowledgements, Ex.A7 is office copy of legal notice dated 26.11.2009.

12.On the other hand the then Commercial Tax Officer,

Gadwal is examined as DW.1 and Exs B1 and B2 are marked for the defendant No.1 though DW.1.

13.Ex.B1 is Letter issued by the State Bank of Hyderabad,

Gadwal branch dated 13-6-2012, Ex.B2 is Letter addressed to the

Deputy Commissioner, Nalgonda Division.

14.The trial court, considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing counsel appearing for the parties came to a conclusion that the plaintif is not entitled for the relief of the eviction of the defendant No.1 from the suit premises and dismissed the suit.

15.Heard the argument submitted by both side counsel:-

16.Now the Points that arise for determination are:-

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of suit premises.

2.To what relief.

17.POINT No.1:-

Admittedly the plaintiff is the owner and the defendant

No.1 is the tenant of the suit premises. There is no registered lease agreement between the landlord and tenant. The initial period of lease is for a period of 11 months and the said period is already expired.

There is no positive evidence placed by the defendant No.1 to the effect that the lease period was extended by the plaintiff and as on the 5 date of filing of the suit the lease contract period is existing and there is a fresh lease agreement.

18.This court perused the observation of the trial court. The trial court has not considered the request of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish that the premises is required for the plaintiff for his occupation, that the defendant No.1 caused damage to the structures and the plaintiff has also failed to establish tat the defendant No.1 is willful defaulter in payment of rents.

19.The present suit is filed by issuing notice required under section 106 of Transfer of Property of Act by the plaintiff. In a suit filed under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act by the landlord it is not obligatory on the part of the landlord to establish that the landlord requires the premises for his personal occupation and the tenant committed default in payment of rents. In the plaint it is mentioned that the lease period is to be extended or renewed as per mutual consent of both parties. The defendant No.1 has not specifically denied the above facts in the written statement filed by the defendant

No.1. From this it can be said that the lease period is to be extended by mutual consent. There is no evidence before the court on the aspect that the plaintiff gave consent for extension of lease period.

Ex.A7 is office copy of notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant

No.1 under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. In Ex.A6 the plaintiff clearly stated that the plaintiff unable to continue the lease period and requested the defendant No.1 to vacate the premises and handover possession of the premises to the plaintiff. The DW.1 admitted in his evidence that the plaintiff got issued notice dated 26.11.2009. From Ex.A7 and in view of the admission of the DW.1 that the plaintiff got issued notice dated 26.11.2009 it is held that the plaintiff duly terminated the tenancy by issuing notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. Simply because the plaintiff received 6 rents after Ex.A7 quit notice, it can not be said that the plaintiff continued the tenancy. Mere acceptance of rents does not amount to waiware of quit notice. Therefore the contention of the defendant No.1 the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the plaintiff received the rents is not accepted even after filing of the suit. Hence it is held that the quit notice under Ex.A7 is valid and binding on the defendant No.1.

20.In the present case the defendant No.1 is in possession of the property as a lessee and it is not in dispute that the plaintiff had issued quit notice under Ex.A7. In spite of receiving the said notice, the defendant No.1 did not vacate the premises. The defence of the defendant No.1 as seen from the evidence of DW.1 is that the plaintiff received rental amounts even after filing of the suit. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled for eviction of the defendant No.1. This court held that mere acceptance of rents does not amount to waiware of quit notice.

Admittedly there is no agreement for fresh lease. Mere acceptance of rents after quit notice will not amount that the plaintiff gave consent for extension of lease period. Hence the defence taken by the defendant No.1 for not evicting the suit premises is not tenable defence. For the following reasons the court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit premises.

a) The Plaintiff is the land lord and the defendant No.1 is the tenant. This fact is not in dispute.

b) Admittedly there is no legally admissible written document for extension of lease period from time to time.

c) The plaintiff issued Ex.A7 quit notice as required under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendant No.1 received the same.

d) Mere acceptance of rents even after quit notice does not amount to waiware of quit notice.

7

e) The defence taken by the defendant No.1 is not tenable under law.

Since the plaintiff duly terminated the tenancy, the defendant

No.1 is liable to vacate the suit premises and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of vacant possession of suit premises.

In view of above all reasons this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

21.POINT No.2:- In view of my findings on Point No.1 the Appeal

Suit is to be allowed.

In the result the appeal suit is allowed. Consequently the judgment and decree in OS No.12 of 2010 dated 7.9.2012 passed by

Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal are hereby set aside. The defendant No.1 is

hereby directed to vacate the suit premises bearing No.1-3-61/5E admeasuring 60 X 50 feet situate at Bheemnagar Gadwal and handed over the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff within the period of 3 months from today. The defendant No.1 is granted 3 months time to vacate the suit premises subject to payment of rents.

Failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to obtain possession of the suit premises through process of law. In the circumstances of the case the parties to this Appeal Suit are directed to bear their costs involved in the appeal suit.

Dictated to Steno-Typist after transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 12th day of April, 2013.

III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C) Gadwal

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, (F.T.C) AT GADWAL

Monday, this the 15th day of April, 2013.

PRESENT:- Sri.T.Venkateswara Reddy, M.Com.B.L., III Additional District Judge, (F.T.C) Gadwal.

O.P.No. 455 of 2012

Between:- Telugu Ram Kumar @ Ramudu S/o Chinthalanna, age 24 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o Mulkalpally village of Gadwal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

….. Petitioner

And

1.M/s Trinity Residential School rep. by its Correspondent, Jagan Mohan Reddy, owner of School bus bearing No.KA25-8388, Parmala village of Gadwal Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

2.M/s National Insurance Co.Ltd, rep. through its Branch Manager, 40/343A, Ist floor, Tula Compex, Gandhinagar, Kurnool. …Respondents ********

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing on 10.4.2013 in the presence of Sri U.Devendraiah, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri

S.Raghavender Rao, Advocate for respondent No1 and Sri P.Pulla Reddy,

Advocate for the respondent No.2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till today the court delivered the following.

O R D E R

1. This is the claim petition filed by the petitioner under section 166 of

M.V.Act for a compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for sustaining injuries to the petitioner in the motor accident.

2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the averments made in the petition is to the following effect:-

On 19.8.2011 while the petitioner was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing No.AP21AK-0869 and the petitioner reached near Kurvapally bus stage, the driver of the bus bearing No.KA25-8388 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle in which the petitioner was travelling. As a result the petitioner fell down from the motor cycle and sustained fracture to his right leg. The petitioner was shifted to Govt. Area Hospital,

Gadwal. The police of Gadwal rural police station registered a case in crime

No.83 of 2011 under section 337 IPC against the driver of the bus and took up investigation. Prior to the accident the petitioner was hale and healthy and the petitioner was earning a sum of Rs.5000/- per month. The petitioner undergone operation and rods were implanted in to the right leg of the petitioner. The petitioner spent huge amount towards medical expenses and towards transportation. The respondent No.1 is the owner, the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the bus and both respondents are liable to pay the compensation payable to the petitioner.

3. The respondent No.1 filed the counter alleging that the accident took place on 19.8.2001. The respondent No.1 is not liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount if any to the petitioner.

4. The respondent No.2 filed the counter alleging that the respondent

No.1 by knowing the fact that the driver of the alleged crime vehicle did not possess any valid and effective driving license to drive such vehicle, allowed him to drove the same. Thus the respondent No.1 violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation amount payable to the petitioner. The incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. The petitioner himself contributed for the incident and the petitioner was not having valid and effective driving license to drove the motor cycle. If the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, the owner and insurer of the motor cycle are liable to pay the same. The owner and insurer of the motor cycle are proper and necessary parties to this petition. The claim of the petitioner is excessive. With this the respondent No.2 requested the court for dismissal of the petition with costs.

5. Now the points that arise for determination are :

1) Whether the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.KA25-8388.

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation amount.

3) To what relief.

6. The petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7.

7. Ex.A1 is certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2 is certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3 is certified copy of wound certificate, Ex.A4 is Certified copy of

Crime details form, Ex.A5 is Copy of permit, Ex.A6 is Copy of driving license of the driver of crime Vehicle, Ex.A7 is copy of policy.

8. On the other hand the respondents have not placed any oral evidence. Ex.B1 copy of policy is marked for the respondent No.2 by consent.

9. The respondent No.2 filed a petition under section 170 M.V.Act and the same is allowed.

10. Heard the arguments submitted by both side counsel.

11. Point No.1 : The petitioner is the injured. The case of the petitioner is that, on 9.8.2011 at Kurvapally bus stage while the petitioner was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing NO.AP21-AK-0869, the driver of the bus bearing No.KA25- 8388 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle. As a result the petitioner fell down and sustained fracture injury to his right leg. The police of Gadwal rural police station registered a case in crime

No.83 of 2011 under section 337 IPC against the driver of the bus and filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation. Thus the case of the petitioner is that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The petitioner is relying on his evidence and on Ex.A1 FIR and A2 charge sheet to show that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The evidence of the petitioner who is injured and eye witness is to the effect that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Further Ex.A1 and A2 are also to the effect that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus.

The respondents have not placed any rebuttal evidence to the evidence of the petitioner and to Ex.A1 and A2. Hence there is no other option for the court except to place reliance on the testimony of PW.1 and on Ex.A1 and A2. From the evidence of PW.1 and from Ex.A1 and A2 it is held that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and the petitioner sustained injury in the incident. Therefore this point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

12. Point No.2 : The petitioner is the injured. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the bus, the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the bus. Ex.B1 policy was in force as on the date of the incident. All the above facts are not in dispute. On point No.1 it is held that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Under the above circumstances t he respondent No.1 being the owner, and the respondent No.2 being the insurer are liable to pay the compensation amount payable to the petitioner.

13. Coming to the quantum of compensation amount, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of wound certificate issued by Orthopaedic Surgeon, Gowri Gopal

Hospital Pvt, Ltd. As seen from the Ex.A3 the petitioner sustained fracture to right tibia middle third compound grade-I and it is mentioned in Ex.A3 that the injury is grevious in nature. From the evidence of PW.1, from Ex.A3 and A1 and

A2 it is held that the petitioner sustained fracture injury to his right leg. Hence a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings.

Since the petitioner sustained fracture to right tibia, the petitioner might have been incurred some expenditure for treatment and for purchase of medicines.

Hence a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards medicines, hospital charges. Since the petitioner sustained fracture injury the petitioner might have been taken bed rest at least for a period of two months. Hence a sum of Rs.6000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards loss of income during treatment period. Towards transportation charges, attendant charges and extra nourishment charges a sum of Rs.6000/- is awarded to the petitioner. Thus the petitioner is entitled for a compensation amount of Rs.42,000/-. The breakup of compensation amount awarded to the petitioner is as follows :

a) Pain and sufferings Rs.20,000=00

b) Medicines, hospital and treatment Rs.10,000=00 charges

c) Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 6,000=00

d) Transportation, attendant, extra nourishment Rs. 6,000=00 charges ------------------- Total Rs.42,000=00 -------------------- In view of above reasons it is held that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation amount Rs.42,000/- and this point is answered in favour of the petitioner accordingly.

14. Point NO.3 : In view of my findings on point Nos 1 and 2, the petition is to be allowed for Rs.42,000/-.

In the result the petition is allowed for Rs.42,000/- (Rupees forty two thousand only) with proportionate costs and with future interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of the amount against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month.

The petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount. The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 15th day of April, 2013.

III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C) Gadwal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PETITIONER:- FOR RESPONDENT

PW.1 Telugu Ram Kumar @ Ramudu -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:-

Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A3 certified copy of wound certificate Ex.A4 Certified copy of Crime details form Ex.A5 Copy of permit Ex.A6 Copy of driving license of driver of crime vehicle Ex.A7 copy of policy

FOR RESPONDENT

Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy

III Additional District Judge, [F.T.C.], Gadwal.

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, (F.T.C) AT GADWAL

Monday, this the 15th day of April, 2013.

PRESENT:- Sri.T.Venkateswara Reddy, M.Com.B.L., III Additional District Judge, (F.T.C) Gadwal.

O.P.No. 455 of 2012

Between:- Telugu Ram Kumar @ Ramudu S/o Chinthalanna, age 24 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o Mulkalpally village of Gadwal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

….. Petitioner

And

1.M/s Trinity Residential School rep. by its Correspondent, Jagan Mohan Reddy, owner of School bus bearing No.KA25-8388, Parmala village of Gadwal Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

2.M/s National Insurance Co.Ltd, rep. through its Branch Manager, 40/343A, Ist floor, Tula Compex, Gandhinagar, Kurnool. …Respondents

This Original Petition is coming up for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri U.Devendraiah, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri

S.Raghavender Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.1, and Sri P.Pulla Reddy,

Advocate for the respondent No.2, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows :

1. That the petition be and hereby is allowed for Rs.42,000/- (Rupees

One Forty two thousand only) with future interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 13.9.2012 till the date of realization of the amount against the respondents jointly and severally.

2. That the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with in a period of one month.

3. After deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount.

4. That the respondents do also pay to the petitioner a sum of

Rs.1281=00 towards costs of the petition.

5. That the Advocate fees is fixed at Rs.1000/-.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 15th day of April, 2013.

III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, (FTC) Gadwal.

: 2 :

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

Particulars For For For

Petitioner Respondent Respondent No.1 No.2 Stamp on plaint Rs. 151=00 - - (Proportionate costs) Stamp on Vakalat Rs. 2=00 2=00 2=00

Stamp on process Rs. 126=00 - -

Stamp on petition Rs. 2=00 - -

Stamp on - - documents -

Commissioner’s fee - - -

Advocate fee Rs. 1000=00 - -

Total Rs. 1281=00 2=00 2=00

III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, (FTC) Gadwal.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-III

ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT) GADWAL.

Thursday, this the 18th day of April, 2013.

Present : Sri T.Venkateswara Reddy, M.Com.,B.L., III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, (F.T.C) Gadwal.

E.P.No. 60 of 2011

In

Arbitration Award No. LOP7/LSA396 of 2010

Between : TATA Motors Finance Ltd. A company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Having its Regd.Office at Ist Floor, Cyber Tech House, Plot No.B-63/65, Road No.21/34, J.B.Sawanth Marg, Wagle Estate, Thane, West-400604 rep. by its G.P.A. Holder P.Nagaraju S/o Laxmi Rajam, age 29 years, R/o. H.No.1-11-93/A/12, Shyamlal building, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

...Petitioner/D.Hr.

And

I.Shanawaz S/o Abdul Latheef, R/o H.No.6-1-28/1, Opp: IMB Church, Ambedkarnagar, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

.. Respondent/J.Dr.

***

This Execution Petition is coming on before me for final hearing on 16.4.2013 in the presence of Sri M.Dhanalaxmi, Advocate

for the petitioner/D.Hr, and Sri Srikanth, Advocate for the

Respondent/J.Dr, and the matter having stood over for consideration till today the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This is the execution petition filed by the petitioner/Decree holder Under Order 21 Rule 37, 38 CPC for realization of the amount due under Arbitration Award by sending the respondent/Judgment

Debtor to civil prison.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the respondent having means to pay the award amount is avoiding to pay the same.

3.The respondent filed the counter alleging that the respondent suffered loss in agriculture and as such the respondent unable to pay the amount at once. The respondent is a govt.employee.

The petitioner shall approach the Hon’ble Court for attachment of salary of the respondent. If the Hon’ble Court grant the installments for payment of decreetal amount the respondent is ready to pay the decreetal amount. The Court is not having jurisdiction to recover the 2 amount by sending the respondent to civil prison. With this the respondent requested the court for dismissal of the petition with costs.

4.Heard the arguments submitted by both side counsel.

5.Now the points that arise for determination are :-

1) Whether the objections of the respondent to this execution petition are tenable.

2) To what relief.

6. Point No.1 : The petitioner filed the execution petition Under Order 21 Rules 37 & 38 CPC for realization of the amount due under award by sending the respondent to civil prison on the ground that the respondent having means intentionally avoiding to pay the amount.

7.The court perused the counter filed by the respondent. In the counter filed by the respondent it is mentioned that the respondent is a Govt. employee. This fact is sufficient to come to a conclusion that the respondent is having means to pay the amount due under award.

The subject award was passed in the year 2010 and till today the respondent has not paid any amount to the petitioner. From this it can be said that the respondent having means avoiding to pay the E.P.

amount. Hence it is held that the respondent having means neglected to pay the EP amount and the objections of the respondent to this execution petition are not tenable and this point is answered against the respondent.

8. Point No.2 : In view of my findings on point No.1 the objections of the respondent to this execution petition are to be negatived and EP is ordered to be proceeded further. During the course of arguments the counsel for the respondent requested the court to grant instalments for payment of EP amount. The petitioner reported no objection for granting installments by imposing conditions. Considering the submissions of both sides the court feels that it is just to grant installments to the respondent for payment of EP amount by imposing conditions.

3

In the result the objections of the respondent to this

Execution Petition are negatived and the respondent is granted six equal monthly installments to pay the EP amount commencing from

June 2013 payable on or before 7th day of every month. In default of payment of any one of the installment arrest order shall be issued on payment of process fee. Call on 10.6.2013.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 17th day of April, 2013.

III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, (FTC) Gadwal

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-III

ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT) GADWAL.

Friday, this the 12th day of April, 2013.

Present : Sri T.Venkateswara Reddy, M.Com.,B.L., III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, (F.T.C) Gadwal.

E.P.No. 24 of 2012

In

O.P. No. 53 of 2006

Between :

1. G.Venkatesh S/o Devanna, aged 60 years, Occ: Private Worker,

2. Smt.G.Gopamma W/o G.Venkatesh, aged 58 years, Occ: House wife, Both R/o Gadwal Town, Mahabubnagar Dist.

...Petitioners/D.Hrs.

And

1. M.Subramanyam Naidu S/o M.Venkat Nidu, Major, Owner of the lorry bearing No.AP04-r-5639, R/o Kammarpally of Railway Kodur, Chinna Orampadu, Kadapa Dist.

2. The United India Insurance Co.Ltd, rep. by its Branch Manager, 27/22, 7 roads, Dwaraka Towers, Kadapa.

.. Respondents/J.Drs.

***

This Execution Petition is coming on before me for final hearing on 2.4.2013 in the presence of Sri B.Maheshwar Reddy,

Advocate for the petitioners/D.Hrs, and Sri S.Raghavendra Rao,

Advocate for the Respondent No.2/JDr.No.2, and the matter having stood over for consideration till today the court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1.This is the execution petition filed by the petitioners/Decree holders under order 21 Rule 43 & 64 CPC for realization of the amount due under award passed in OP 53 of 2006 by sale of petition schedule mentioned movable property belonging to respondent No.2 insurance company.

2.The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners obtained award in OP.No.53 of 2006 against the respondents. The respondents did not pay the amount to the petitioners and the respondents are intentionally neglecting to deposit the amount. Hence the petitioners requested the court for attachment and sale of petition schedule mentioned movable property.

2

3.The respondent No.2 filed the counter alleging that the petitioners obtained exparte award, the respondent No.2 has no title and possession over petition mentioned schedule property. Petitioners have no right to ask for attachment of petition schedule mentioned property.

4.Heard the arguments submitted by both side counsel.

5.Now the points that arise for determination are :-

1) Whether the objections of the respondents to this execution petition are sustainable.

2) To what relief.

6. Point No.1 : The petitioners are the decree holders and the respondents are the judgment debtors. The petitioners obtained award in OP.No.53 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Tribunals–cum-III

Additional District Judge (F.T.C) Gadwal, dt.3.11.2009. Under the said

award the respondent No.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,87,000/- with proportionate costs and with interest to the petitioners towards compensation. Admittedly the respondents have not taken any steps for setting aside the exparte award passed in OP No.53 of 2006 against them. As per the award passed in OP.No.53 of 2006 the petitioners are entitled for a compensation amount of Rs.1,87,000/- with proportionate costs and interest. As the respondents have failed to pay the amount due under award, the petitioners are entitled to proceed against the movable property of respondent No.2. Hence the objections of the respondent No.2 to this execution petition are not sustainable and this point is answered against the respondent No.2.

7.Point No.2 : In view of my findings on Point No.1, the objections of the respondent No.2 to this execution petition are to be negatived.

In the result the objections of the respondent No.2 to this execution petition are negatived and E.P. is ordered to be proceeded further. Issue attachment in respect of petition schedule mentioned movable property. Call on 3.6.2013.

3

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 12th day of April, 2013.

III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, (FTC) Gadwal