Sri V. Sreenivasa Sivaram

X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

III Addl. District Court,, Tirupathi (Taluka) · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

Sri V. Sreenivasa Sivaram, X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, is posted at III Addl. District Court,, Tirupathi (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 175 court orders on record since 2022. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CRLMP, EP, OS cases.

175

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

MVOP/163/2018 Convicted

T. Srinivasulu vs B.Penchala Reddy

21 Oct 2022

Before the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims TribunalcumX

Additional District Judge: Tirupati

Present: Sri. V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram,

Chairman, MACT cum X ADJ.

Friday, the 21st day of October, 2022

M.V.O.P.No.163/2018

1. T. Srinivasulu.

.. Petitioner

1. B. Penchala Reddy

2. A. Sridhar

3. Shriram General Insurasnce Comany Limited represented by its Divisional Manager, Tirupati.

.. Respondents

This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me on 07.09.2022 in the presence of Sri. Y.V. Subramanyam, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri S. Prem Kumar Karanam, Advocate for respondent No.3, whereas the respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 166 (1) (a) of the Motor

Vehicle Act, 1988 r/w Rules 455 and 475 of A.P.M.V. Rules 1989 for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/ with respect to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident.

2. The brief facts of the claim petition is that the petitioner who was aged 45 years at the time of the accident was doing paper 2 packing work in Sakshi Newspaper and earning Rs.10,000/ per month and was also doing cultivation and earning Rs.2,00,000/ per annum. While so, on 22062014 when the petitioner was going on his Honda Shine Motorcycle bearing No.AP03AG5434 and when he reached Chenchulakshmi Yanadi Colony towards Renigunta side, at that time the first respondent who was the driver of the Tractor bearing No.AP03W5605 drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and by coming in the wrong way dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, due to which the petitioner sustained bleeding injuries and he was shifted to SVRR GG Hospital in the ambulance and from there the petitioner was shifted to CMC Hospital and there were no beds, the petitioner was shifted to Ramachandra Medical College,

Chennai for better treatment.

3.With respect to the accident, the Tiruchanur Police

Station registered a case in Cr.No.203/2014 for the offence under

Section 337 and 338 IPC and under Section 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of

M.V. Act was registered and the police after investigation filed charge sheet, which is numbered as C.C.No.244/2014 on the file of

V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati and the respondent No.1 was convicted by the court on 02052017 and a fine of Rs.1,000/ was imposed.

4.The tractor belongs to the second respondent which is insured with the third respondent and the policy was valid from 08112013 to 07112014. Hence, the petition.

5.The respondent No.3 filed his written statement denying the averments of the petition and contending that the driver of the tractor was going with due care and caution and the place of accident is a busy junction, the petitioner suddenly crossed the road without observing the traffic due to which the petitioner lost control and dashed against the vehicle of the second respondent and even though the driver of the second respondent applied sudden brakes and as such there is no negligence on the driver of the second respondent vehicle and that the first respondent does not have valid driving licence and the vehicle of the second respondent does not have valid documents and that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the manner, mode of the accident, income and occupation and contended that the owner and the insurance company which insured the motorcycle are not made a parties and as such the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and prayed that the petition may be dismissed.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 22062014 at about 230 PM due to negligent driving of Tractor bearing No.AP03 W5605 or not ?

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ?

3. To what relief ?

7.On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 are marked and on behalf of the respondents,

R.W.1 was examined, but no documents are marked.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. ISSUE NO.1: On this aspect, P.W.1 who is the injured/petitioner stated the same facts mentioned in the petition and the relevant documents are Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the first information report, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the charge sheet filed by the police against the respondent No.1 and ExA.6 is the certified copy of the Judgment in C.C.No.224/2014 on the file of V

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati and the

respondent No.1 herein has been convicted for the offence under

Section 338 IPC and Section 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V Act and as per Ex.A6, the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class found that the respondent No.1 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and as such the respondent No.1 was sentenced to pay fine and therefore the petitioner's contention that the respondent No.1 drove the vehicle and caused an accident to the petitioner is clearly proved and with respect to the injuries as per Ex.A2 which is the wound certificate issued by the Casual Medical Officer of SVRR GG Hospital, the petitioner due to the accident suffered the following injuries; 1) Open fracture right mandible with 6 x 4 cm laceration ; 2) A x 2 cm laceration 6 cm upper lip and 3) open fracture right pastelia.

10.With respect to the injuries P.W.2 is the Doctor who has treated the petitioner conducted open reduction and internal fixation of the pan facial fractures was conducted on 25062014 and tracheotomy was down on 23062014 and the cross examination by the learned counsel for the respondents did not dis credit the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 with respect to the accident and also performance of the surgery. Therefore, the petitioner has clearly proved that the respondent no.1 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the injuries to the petitioner.

11.With respect to the compensation the petitioner admittedly was aged 40 years at the time of the accident and with respect to his income and occupation according to the petitioner he is working in Sakshi Newapaper as a packing boy and getting

Rs.10,000/ per month and he is also getting Rs.2,00,000/ per annum from agriculture and in his cross examination admitted that he did not file any records to show his income and he also admitted that he was doing cultivation by taking lands on lease and therefore admittedly there is no record to show his occupation, but considering the circumstances that 40 years person would not be sitting idle and the minimum income he would be earning is

Rs.10,000/ per month.

12.Now the question that next arises is whether the petitioner is suffering from any disability. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 due to loss of teeth in the accident, the petitioner 6 has difficulty in having food and even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that he is working as a paper packing boy that his job is packing of the newspaper, except for the period of treatment, the petitioner does not have any disability and he has no difficulty in attending to his job and therefore the petitioner is not suffering from any permanent disability which stops him working.

13.With respect to the pain and suffering, considering the fact that the petitioner has difficulty in having food and also the injuries suffered he is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/.

14.With respect to the treatment and the costs of the hospital, the relevant document is Ex.A4 which shows that the petitioner has incurred a sum of Rs.2,55,594/ and the said bills has been corroborated by P.W.2 and as such the petitioner is entit6led for th said sum of Rs.2,55,594/.

15.Considering the fact that the petitioner was treated at

Chennai for a period of 15 days in the hospital the petitioner would have incurred costs for travel and attendant expenses and therefore a sum of Rs.30,000/ is awarded for personal and attendant expenses.

16.It is important to observe that the petitioner was treated for 15 days in the hospital and the petitioner was advised to take bed rest and not to move his right foot and as such the petitioner would have been in the house for about 5 months and as he has lost 7 his wages during that period, he is entitled for a sum of

Rs.50,000/, in all the petitioner is entitled for a sum of

Rs.4,35,594/

17. If we sum up the entitlement of compensation under various heads as stated above, the total compensation to be awarded to the petitioner is as follows:

01.Loss of earnings Rs. 50,00000 02Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,00000 03Medical ExpensesRs.2,55,59400 04Travel and Attendant expensesRs.30,00000

Total Rs.4,35,59400

18.In view of the findings recorded in the above said issues,

I consider that the petitioner is entitled to compensation of

Rs.4,35,594/ along with and interest at 9% p.a., with proportionate costs.

19In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.4,35,594/ to the petitioner with future interest at 9% p.a., and costs and accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same.

20.The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation with future interest at 9% p.a., and costs 8 as above within one month from the date of this award. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,00000.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open court, this the 21 st day of October, 2022.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum X Additional District Judge, Tirupati. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:

P.W.1 T. Srinivasulu. P.W.2 Dr. Ravichandran through Advocate Commissioner.

For Respondents:

R.W.1 K. Bangaraiah.

Exhibits marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A.2Certified copy of wound certificate Ex.A.3Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A.4Medical bills issued by Ramachandra Hospital. Ex.A.5Photostat copy of Insurance Policy Ex.A.6CC of Judgment in CC.No.224/2014 Ex.A.7CC of Form54 Ex.A.8Xray report Ex.A.9CT scan report of the petitioner.

For Respondents :

Nil.

Chairman, MACTcum

X ADJ, TPT

//Fair Judgment in M.V.O.P.No.163 of 2018,

Dated 21102022.//.

MVOP/49/2018 Convicted

D. Bakkaiah vs Vs

20 Oct 2022

Before the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims TribunalcumX

Additional District Judge: Tirupati

Present: Sri. V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram,

Chairman, MACT cum X ADJ.

Thursday, the 20th day of October, 2022

M.V.O.P.No.49/2018

D. Bakkaiah.

.. Petitioner

1. S. Jakir.

2. S. Arif.

3. The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Tirupati.

.. Respondents

This petition coming on 07102022 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. C.V. Chalapathy, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri G.

Krishnaiah, Advocate for the 2 nd respondent and Sri V. Krishna Reddy,

Advocate for the 3 rd respondent, whereas the 1 st respondent remained exparte and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 166 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 r/w Rules 455 and 475 of A.P.M.V. Rules 1989 for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/ with respect to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road accident.

2. The brief facts of the petition that prior to the accident, the petitioner who was aged 55 years was working as agriculturist and coolie.

While so, on 23042017 at about 1050 am when the petitioner was going on a motorcycle bearing No..AP03P6131 on Kajoor road, the driver of

Saluto RX Motorcycle bearing No.AP03CA2416 drove in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the petitioner due to which the petitioner 2 sustained multiple abrasions over left leap, laceration in left frontal region, swelling of left eye and even though the wound certificate shows that the injuries are simple in nature, the head injury is grievous and he has become permanently disabled.

3.With respect to the accident, the Chittoor Traffic PS registered a case in Cr.No.36/2017 for the offence under Section 337 IPC.

The second respondent is the owner of the motorcycle bearing No.AP03

CA2416 which is insured with the third respondent. Hence, the petition.

4.The second respondent filed his counter denying the avermetns of the petition and contended that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the manner, mode of the accident, occupation and income of the petitioner and contended that he is the owner of the motorcycle and the respondent No.1 has taken his motorcycle without his permission as such he is not concerned with the accident and that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

5.The third respondent field his written statement denying the averments of the petition and contended that the first respondent is a minor having no driving licence and the second respondent entrusted the motorcycle to a minor and the second respondent was fined by the Court and as such there is a fundamental breach of the conditions of the policy by the respondent No.2 and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed that the petition may be dismissed.

6. Basing on the above of the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 23042017 at 1050 AM, due to negligent driving of Saluto RX Motorcycle bearing No.AP03CA2416 or not ?

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom ?

3. To what relief?

7.On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A4 are marked and on behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.B1 to B5.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9.ISSUE NO.1: On this aspect, P.W.1 who is the injured/ petitioner stated in his evidence the same facts mentioned in the petition and as seen from the written statement of second respondent, it is undisputed fact that the respondent No.1 drove his motorcycle and dashed the motorcycle being driven by the driver and the petitioner is a pillion rider.

10.It is also pertinent to observe that the police have registered a case under Ex.A1 and have field charge sheet under Ex.A4 and the respondent No.1 was convicted as per the Judgment under Ex.B2 and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/ and therefore the petitioner has proved that the respondent No.1 drove the motorcycle bearing No.AP03

CA2416 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle while the petitioner was sitting as pillion driver.

11.With respect to the injury, Ex.A2 is the wound certificate which disclose that the petitioner sustained multiple abrasions over left leap, laceration in left frontal region, swelling of left eye and the Xray reveal no bone injury and that the injuries are simple in nature.

12.Therefore as seen from Ex.A2 the injuries sustained by the petitioner are simple and even, he was treated as an outpatient and therefore the contention of the petitioner he is permanently disabled cannot be accepted and therefore the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,000/ towards pain and suffering and there is no monetary loss to the petitioner for the accident and therefore the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.10,000/.

13.The decisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner for pay and recovery ie., 1) New India Assurasnce company Limited vs Swati

Dhondiram Nagargoje and others, reported in II (2017) ACC 560 (Bombay.), 2) New India Assurance Company Limited vs V. Appavu and others reported in I (2017) ACC 105 (Madras) and 3) New India Assurance

Company Limited vs Venthan ( Minor) reported in I (2018) ACC 562 ( Madras) are not applicable to the facts of the present case as they were granted by the Constitutional Courts.

14.The next point for for comes for consideration who has to pay the compensation. In this regard, admittedly the vehicle belongs to the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1 is a minor who has caused the accident and as a minor cannot have a driving licence, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensate for the negligence of the owner of the vehicle in allowing the minor to drive the vehicle and as such the claim against the respondent No.3 is to be dismissed and the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation.

14.In the result, this petition is partly allowed, the respondent

No.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/ to the petitioner along with costs and interest at 9% p.a., within in one month and that the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same. The petition against the third respondent is dismissed. The rest of the claim of the petitioner is also dismissed.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open court, this the 20th day of June, 2022.

Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum

X Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:

P.W.1 D. Bakkaiah.

For Respondents:

R.W.1 S. Chandrasekhar Rao.

Exhibits marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A.2Certified copy of wound certificate Ex.A.3Certified copy of accident information report Ex.A.4Certified copy charge sheet

For Respondents :

Ex.B.1True copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.B2CC of Judgment in CC.No.43/2017 Ex.B3CC of charge sheet in CC.No.43/2017 Ex.B4CC of FIR in Cr.No.36/2017 Ex.B5CC of charge sheet in Cr.No.37/2016

Chairman, MACTcum

X ADJ,

TPT //Fair Judgment in M.V.O.P.No.49 of 2018,

Dated 20102022.//

EP/87/2021

M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited represented by GPA Holder V. Gopi vs M. Mohan Kumar

21 Oct 2022

EP/78/2020

M/ Shriram City Union Finance Limited represented by its GPA Hoder V. Gopi vs K. Suman

21 Oct 2022

EP/42/2022

Dharmaiahgari Vijaya Kumari vs Michel Raja M.S.

21 Oct 2022

Order Record 169 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/42/2022	Dharmaiahgari Vijaya Kumari vs Michel Raja M.S.	21 Oct 2022	Order	—
EP/78/2020	M/ Shriram City Union Finance Limited represented by its GPA Hoder V. Gopi vs K. Suman	21 Oct 2022	Order	—
EP/87/2021	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited represented by GPA Holder V. Gopi vs M. Mohan Kumar	21 Oct 2022	Order	—
MVOP/163/2018	T. Srinivasulu vs B.Penchala Reddy	21 Oct 2022	Judgement	Convicted
MVOP/49/2018	D. Bakkaiah vs Vs	20 Oct 2022	Judgement	Convicted
MVOP/156/2017	A. Sasidhar Reddy vs D. Anandakumar	20 Oct 2022	Judgement	—
SC/29/2019	The State represented by Inspector of Police vs Bollineni Jeevan	20 Oct 2022	Judgement	—
EP/154/2021	M/S.Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs O.Bala Nagaraju	19 Oct 2022	Order	—
EP/3/2019	M/s T. Jayaraman, a rgistred firm represented by its Managing Partner T. Jayaraman vs P. Saravan Kumar	18 Oct 2022	Order	—
EP/39/2022	M/S.Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs S.Sreenivasulu	18 Oct 2022	Order	—
EP/131/2021	M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. vs V.Srinivasulu	18 Oct 2022	Order	—
MVOP/189/2021	B.Lakshmi Devi vs APSRTC	18 Oct 2022	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/474/2022	Shaik Riyaz vs Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti	18 Oct 2022	Other	—
OS/69/2016	Kanike Sivappa vs Ms.Usha Sanjeeva Reddy Techlinks Private Limited	17 Oct 2022	Judgement	—
CRLA/11/2020	Narla Sireesha vs T. Veeraraghava Reddy	13 Oct 2022	Other	—
AS/38/2021	P.Sarojamma vs S.Nagalakshmi	12 Oct 2022	Judgement	—
MVOP/114/2019	S. Shanaz vs G. Manohar	12 Oct 2022	Judgement	—
OS/52/2022	Smt.K.Sharmila vs Sri B.Rajasekhar Chowdary	12 Oct 2022	Judgement	—
EP/45/2020	D. Mohini vs A. Vamsi	10 Oct 2022	Order	—
OS/26/2022	P.V.Vasantha Kumari vs T.M.Govindaswamy	10 Oct 2022	Judgement	—
OS/303/2018	Sandanamudi Prameela vs G. Sanjeeva Reddy	10 Oct 2022	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/466/2022	Natham Manikantan @ Yerrodu vs Station House Officer, Sri City, Hi-Tech PS	10 Oct 2022	Order	—
MVOP/8/2019	M. Jeevan vs Sahadevaiah	07 Oct 2022	Order	—
EP/28/2021	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited represented by GPA Holder V. Gopi vs P. Kishore	29 Sep 2022	Order	—
AS/19/2022	The Government of Andhra Pradesh vs Tirupathi Social and Cultural Society	28 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
EP/38/2022	M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. vs N.Nagaraju	28 Sep 2022	Order	—
OS/93/2016	P.Padmanabhan vs V.Gangadhar Guptha	24 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
EP/182/2021	TVS Credit Services Limited Company vs G.Yellamma	23 Sep 2022	Order	—
EP/26/2021	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited represented by GPA Holder V. Gopi vs G. Munirajamma	22 Sep 2022	Order	—
OS/218/2018	T. Sakunthala @ T. Rani vs Sri Thamidhalapati Sreeramulu	22 Sep 2022	Other	—
OS/27/2018	A. Munaswamy vs Pagadala Arjuna	21 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
CRLA/5/2020	Dommaraju Meena vs Dasaraju Venugopal	21 Sep 2022	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/453/2022	T.Koti @ Koteeshwar Rao vs Inspector of Police, Rural PS, Srikalahasti.	21 Sep 2022	Other	—
OS/98/2017	J. Jayamma vs The Tahsildar	20 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/448/2022	G.Prasanth vs The Station House Officer, East Police Station. Tirupathi.	20 Sep 2022	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/449/2022	Devendra vs The Station House Officer, East P.S., Tirupathi.	20 Sep 2022	Other	—
EP/140/2021	M/S.Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs S.Shabeer	19 Sep 2022	Order	—
EP/163/2021	M/s.Kanakadurga Finance Co. Ltd., vs Olipi Kumari	19 Sep 2022	Order	—
OS/194/2017	Muppalla Sadasiva Naidu vs Ramanjapalle Siddaiah	19 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
SC/356/2018	State represented by its Inspector of Police vs K. Vasudeva Reddy	19 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
MVOP/12/2020	Tirumala Narasimhulu Reddy vs Avala Mohan Babu	16 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/446/2022	Pidikiti Harish vs Station House Officer, Disha UPS Tirupathi	16 Sep 2022	Other	—
EP/111/2021	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs M.Srinivasa RAo	15 Sep 2022	Order	—
MVOP/78/2017	S.Haritha vs M.Kishore	15 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
CRLRP/30/2022	G.Thejesvi vs Ravi @ Bullet Ravi.	15 Sep 2022	Other	—
EP/62/2020	M/ Shriram City Union Finance Limited epresented by its GPA Hoder V. Gopi vs Y. Muni Sekhar	14 Sep 2022	Order	—
SC/177/2021	State represented by vs Pujari Murali	13 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
EP/85/2021	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited represented by GPA Holder V. Gopi vs E. Vinod Kumar	08 Sep 2022	Order	—
MVOP/71/2020	M. Munisai Kumar @ Saikumar vs Polakala Srinivasulu	08 Sep 2022	Other	—
OS/67/2015	T.M.Srikanth vs M.Sarojamma	08 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
OS/249/2015	G.Suresh Babu vs T.M.Srikanth	08 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
EP/88/2021	M. Sunil Kumar vs G. rohini @ Gali Rohinamma	07 Sep 2022	Order	—
EP/45/2020	D. Mohini vs A. Vamsi	06 Sep 2022	Order	—
CMA/17/2019	R. Shanthi vs R. Pushpa @ Bujji	05 Sep 2022	Order	—
EP/27/2021	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited represented by GPA Holder V. Gopi vs K. Mohan Krishna	05 Sep 2022	Order	—
EP/176/2021	M/S.Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs Sri Sai Agencies rep. by its	05 Sep 2022	Order	—
OS/211/2018	M. Vijayabhaskar Reddy vs L. Anbu @ Anbu Yadav	05 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
EP/5/2022	M/S.Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs S.Saleem	02 Sep 2022	Order	—
EP/97/2021	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs M.Srilatha	02 Sep 2022	Order	—
OS/222/2017	S. Gopi @ Gopi Shanmugam vs V.R. Ramakrishna	02 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
CRLA/66/2022	R.Sudarsan Reddy vs P.Bhagyamma	02 Sep 2022	Other	—
AS/32/2022	P.Santhamma vs Nagari Govindarajulu	01 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
EP/27/2022	M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. vs A.Ramesh	01 Sep 2022	Order	—
MVOP/217/2018	V. Naresh vs M. Ramanaiah	01 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
OS/287/2015	M.Srinivasulu vs T.Pavan Kumar	01 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
SC/12/2020	State represented by Inspector of Police vs Ramesh Dharanidharan	01 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
EP/30/2021	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited represented by GPA Holder V. Gopi vs P. Kannan Danaiah	30 Aug 2022	Order	—
EP/68/2020	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited epresented by its GPA Hoder V. Gopi vs T. Ramathulasi	30 Aug 2022	Order	—
OS/29/2020	N.Venkateswara Rao vs B.Sherija Venkat	30 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
OS/265/2018	S. Venkataramana Reddy vs D. Gopikrishna	30 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
OS/21/2019	M. Himabindu vs M. Vijaya vani	26 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
EP/101/2021	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs P.Siddaiah	25 Aug 2022	Other	—
OS/119/2016	Achukatla Bhuvanewari vs Vardhi Vijayalakshmi	25 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/414/2022	Giri vs The State rep., by S.H.O of S.E.B. Karvetingaram Polilce station	25 Aug 2022	Other	—
EP/33/2021	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited represented by GPA Holder V. Gopi vs G. Sridhar	24 Aug 2022	Order	—
MVOP/87/2021	R. Lokanadham vs S Syed Bhasha	24 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
EP/9/2020	Thamba Raghu vs Vedlam Rama Murthy Reddy	23 Aug 2022	Order	—
EP/57/2020	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited represented by its GPA Holder V. Gopi vs Sri Devi Medical Fancy by K. Srinivasulu	22 Aug 2022	Order	—
EP/48/2021	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited represented by GPA Holder V. Gopi vs A. Ravi	18 Aug 2022	Order	—
EP/171/2021	M/S.Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs A.Krishna Murthy	17 Aug 2022	Order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/408/2022	Thota Praveen vs State rep., by S.H.O of Renigunta Urban P.S	16 Aug 2022	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/410/2022	Kotegaram Kupaiah vs The state rep., by S.H.O of SEB Station Karvetinagaram	16 Aug 2022	Other	—
OS/44/2021	, represented by its Executive office vs Koganti Venkata Seshagiri Rao	12 Aug 2022	Order	—
EP/87/2021	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited represented by GPA Holder V. Gopi vs M. Mohan Kumar	11 Aug 2022	Order	—
EP/6/2022	M/S.Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs M.Saleem Basha	08 Aug 2022	Order	—
MVOP/119/2017	Konda Ramanamma vs Nagapatla Mahendra	08 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
MVOP/351/2015	S.Rasheed vs E.Prasad	08 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
OS/54/2021	Mallavaram Subramanyam Reddy vs Poli Sreedevi	01 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
SC/90/2018	The State represented by Inspector of Police vs Garlapati Nagendra	01 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/391/2022	Dasu ramesh vs The State of A.P. rep., by its S.H.O of Renigunta P.S.	29 Jul 2022	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/393/2022	Thota Praveen vs The State rep., by The S.H.O Renigunta Urban Police Station	29 Jul 2022	Other	—
EP/64/2019	M. Umapathi Reddy vs N. Balakrishnaiah	28 Jul 2022	Order	—
OS/32/2021	Sripuram Raghavendra Prasad vs Sreepuram Venkata Krishnaiah	28 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/389/2022	M.Nitish vs The State rep.,by SI of Police, Tiruchanur Police Station	28 Jul 2022	Other	—
SC/200/2017	The State rep by the Inspector of Police, vs Muddula Manohar	27 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/382/2022	P.Devendra vs State represented by its SHO	27 Jul 2022	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/387/2022	A.Ajay Teja vs The state rep.,, by its S.H.O, East, Post	27 Jul 2022	Other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/379/2022	Ravilla Murali Mohan Bala Naidu vs State represented by SHO of	19 Jul 2022	Other	—
SC/271/2019	Stat represented by Inspector of police vs Y. Bhuvaneswari	08 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
AS/5/2019	R. Ravi Kumar vs L.Kiranmayee	05 Jul 2022	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 169 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2022		25
Sep 2022		43
Aug 2022		23
Jul 2022		14
Jun 2022		21
May 2022		27
Apr 2022		22

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri V. Sreenivasa Sivaram handled?

Sri V. Sreenivasa Sivaram has handled 175 court orders since 2022 at III Addl. District Court,, Tirupathi (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 28 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri V. Sreenivasa Sivaram hear?

Based on available records, Sri V. Sreenivasa Sivaram primarily handles Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Original Suits) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Appeals) at III Addl. District Court,, Tirupathi (Taluka).

Where is Sri V. Sreenivasa Sivaram currently posted?

Sri V. Sreenivasa Sivaram is posted as X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE at III Addl. District Court,, Tirupathi (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri V. Sreenivasa Sivaram available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri V. Sreenivasa Sivaram are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri V. Sreenivasa Sivaram dispose cases?

Sri V. Sreenivasa Sivaram disposes approximately 28 cases per month, based on 175 orders handled over their tenure at III Addl. District Court,, Tirupathi (Taluka).

Since when is Sri V. Sreenivasa Sivaram serving?

Sri V. Sreenivasa Sivaram has been serving at III Addl. District Court,, Tirupathi (Taluka) since 2022.

Case Types

CRLMP 29%

EP 25%

OS 18%

MVOP 16%

SC 4%

CRLA 4%

AS 3%

CRLRP 1%

Posting History

Apr 2022 — Oct 2022

X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE · 175 orders

Outcomes on Record

Convicted 2

Other Judges at this Court

Sri M. Guru Nath

III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

982 orders

Smt. G. Archana

IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

763 orders

Sri. G.ramagopal

V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

1,544 orders

Sri S.Krishnan Kutty

X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

0 orders

Smt. S P D Vennela

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1 orders

Smt. B. Vanisree

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

3,171 orders

Sri C.K.V.Satyakanth Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

2,834 orders

P. Koteswara Rao

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

2,177 orders

Smt. M. Sandya Rani

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

950 orders

Sri G. Srinivas

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

3,773 orders

← View all judges at III Addl. District Court,, Tirupathi (Taluka)

Sri V. Sreenivasa Sivaram

Present: Sri. V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram,

Chairman, MACT cum X ADJ.

M.V.O.P.No.163/2018

O R D E R

Chairman, MACTcum

X ADJ, TPT

Present: Sri. V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram,

Chairman, MACT cum X ADJ.

M.V.O.P.No.49/2018

O R D E R

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum

Chairman, MACTcum

X ADJ,

Present: Sri. V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram,

X Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

in

O R D E R.

Present: Sri. V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram,

X Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

in

O R D E R.

in

MVOP No. 40/2015

O R D E R

TIRUPATHI.

Sri V. Sreenivasa Sivaram

Present: Sri. V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram,

Chairman, MACT­ cum­ X ADJ.

M.V.O.P.No.163/2018

O R D E R

Chairman, MACT­cum­

X ADJ, TPT

Present: Sri. V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram,

Chairman, MACT­ cum­ X ADJ.

M.V.O.P.No.49/2018

O R D E R

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal­cum­

Chairman, MACT­cum­

X ADJ,

Present: Sri. V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram,

X Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

in

O R D E R.

Present: Sri. V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram,

X Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

in

O R D E R.

in

MVOP No. 40/2015

O R D E R

TIRUPATHI.

Chairman, MACT cum X ADJ.

Chairman, MACTcum

Chairman, MACT cum X ADJ.

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum

Chairman, MACTcum