Vacant FAC Smt. P.Kamala Devi, III ADJ

-1-

In the Court of the III Additional District Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

Present:-Smt. P. Kamala Devi, Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs & STs Cases – Cum – VIII Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu FAC III Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Tuesday, the 26th day of February, 2019

Original Suit No.19/2013

Between:-

Smt. Prameelamma--Plaintif

and

1.Singanamala Sivaramappa

2.Singanamala Viswanatham

3.Singanamala Surendra Nath

4.T. Annapurnamma

5.K.Badhree Visalakshmi

6.Kalumadi Varalakshmi

7.Gurugunta Nirmala

8.Sakala Sujatha

9.Mohammad Vaseem Salim

10.Sayed Begum

11.D.M. Saleem (defendants 9 to 11 added as per orders in IA 204/2017, dated --Defendants 19.7.2018)

This Original Suit coming on 15.2.2019 before me in the presence of Sri S.Baba Fakruddin, Advocate for the plaintif and Sri B.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for defendants 1 to 3, Sri M.C.Ram Kumar, advocate for the defendants 4 to 6, Sri A.Jagan, advocate for defendants 7 and 8, the defendants 9 to 11 having been called absent and set exparte, and on hearing arguments on both the sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- // J U D G M E N T //

The suit has been filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 9 equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintif by passing preliminary decree and for costs.

-2-

2.THE BRIEF AVERMENTS OF PLAINT ARE AS FOLLOWS:-

The plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Singanamala Sathyanarayana. He died on 26.12.1996 intestate leaving behind him three sons and six daughters as his sole legal heirs.

Upon the death of Singanamala Sathyanarayana, the plaintif and the defendants have succeeded the joint family properties and all of them are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties with equal shares i.e., 1/9th share each. Mother of the plaintif predeceased to father. While so, the defendants 1 to 3 colluded together and not disclosed the correct accounts properly with a mala fide intention to play fraud against the plaintif. Having come to know the same, the plaintif demanded the defendant for partition and separate possession of her legitimate 1/9th share in the joint family properties, but they did not come forward for amicable partition. The father of the plaintif insisted the plaintif to live in the house bearing

Door No.15/218 and since then the plaintif along with her family residing in the said house for more than 30 to 35 years and she is paying house tax, water tax and electrical bills on her own. She incurred expenses to renovate the building as and when required aqs it is an old one. All the family members confirmed that the said house is to be allotted to the plaintif whenever partition occurs. Recently some disputes arose between the plaintif and the 2nd defendant. About a week before filing of the suit, the 2nd defendant came to the house of the plaintif and demanded the plaintif to vacate the building as the defendants 1 to 3 have partitioned the entire family properties by denying the legitimate share of this plaintif. Hence the plaintif is constrained to file suit for partition and separate possession of the -3- plaintif’s 1/9th share in the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds.

3.During the pendency of this suit, the 1st defendant fraudulently sold away the item No.2 of the suit schedule property in collusion with other defendants. Hence the sale is not binding on the plaintif.

4.The defendants 1 and 4 filed separate written statements.

D2 and D3 filed Memo adopting the written statement of D1. D5 to D8 filed Memo adopting the written statement of D4. D9 to D11 remained exparte.

5.The brief allegations of the written statement of D1 are as follows:- He denied most of the allegations and submitted as follows:-

Defendants 1 to 3 and their father came from business and from the beginning they were doing business in groundnut. Out of their own eforts they accumulated the properties. The defendants 1 to 3 and their father have no ancestral properties or nucleus. They used to purchase the groundnut from the agriculturists and used to sell the same with some profit and out of their own earnings, purchased the plaint schedule property. Items 1, 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule property were purchased by the father of this defendant i.e.,

Satyanarayana out of his own earnings. As such they are the self acquired properties of the father of this defendant and he was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties. Later

Singanamala Sathyanarayana has executed a registered will dated 31.8.1996 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule property in favour of the defendants 1 to 3.

-4-

Later the defendants 1 to 3 have partitioned items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule property under a registered partition deed dated 7.4.2009.

As such the defendants 1 to 3 alone have the absolute right, title and possession over items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule property. The 2nd defendant purchased item No.5 of the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 5.7.1973 from its rightful owner. Hence neither the father of the defendant nor other members of the family have any right over item no.4 of the plaint schedule property. The plaintif being eldest sister of the defendants 1 to 3, approached the defendant no.3 and requested to allow her to stay in the said house.

Thus she was permitted to reside in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. Recently, the defendant no.3 asked the plaintif to vacate item no.4 of the plaint schedule property. Thus the plaintif came up with the present suit with all false and frivolous allegations. Thus none of the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral or joint family properties. As such the plaintif is not entitled to any share in the said properties. The mother of the plaintif and the defendants, by name,

Nagarathnamma died on 22.2.2000. Therefore they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

6.D4 filed written statement contending as follows:- She denied all the allegations in the plaint and submitted as follows:-

The 3rd defendant was aged about 16 years by the time of purchasing item No.4 of the plaint schedule in his favour and has no individual financial capacity. Hence it is the property of joint family. At the time of execution of alleged will, the father of the plaintif and defendants was completely bed-ridden and he was unconscious and he -5- was not in sound state of mind and his health condition was also very bad and not in moving position nearly 1 to 1 ½ years at his last stage and he was not in a position even to move his hand. The plaintif has spent her services to him, at no point of time the father of the plaintif and defendants executed any will in favour of anybody in the family.

Hence the question of execution of will by the father of the defendants does not arise. The defendants 1 to 3 are put to strict proof of the same. The father of the plaintif and defendants died intestate. The alleged will is created by the defendants 1 to 3 for the sake of this case for their wrongful gain. Hence he prays to allow their legitimate shares among the plaintif and defendants over the plaint schedule properties.

7.The plaintif filed rejoinder contending as follows:- The alleged will dated 31.8.1996 is a forged document. The signature is forged one. Late Singanamala Sathyanarayana had no need to execute any will at all. The will was got up by impersonation. Singanamala

Sathyanarayana never registered any document in favour of defendants 1, 2 and 3 on 31.8.1996. Singanamala Sathyanarayana and his brother Ramalingaiah inherited his mother’s properties and the same was divided among them and he sold the same and got purchased all the properties in his name. Some of the properties inherited from Appracheruvu village and sold the same and from the sale consideration he purchased the property in the name of his sons which are items 4 and 5 in the name of D2 and D3. At the time of purchase of those properties, D2 and D3 are students and they are not having financial capacity to purchase those properties. Two years prior to death of Singanamala Sathyanarayana, he was not feeling well and he has no mental equilibrium and balance of mind and he was -6- depending on others for his own personal works. The defendants 1 to 3 managed a Sub Registrar, Ananthapuramu and created the will to reap monetary benefits in cash and kind depriving the natural right of inheritance to the daughters of Singanamala Sathyanarayana. When the marriage of the grand-daughter of Singanamala Sathyanarayana was performed on 26.5.1995, he was bed ridden and agile, not able to walk or act independently without the support of other persons. Due to lot of love and afection to his father, the plaintif has attended to the services of him till his death. Hence the will dated 31.8.1996 was created and has no validity. The marriage of the plaintif was performed in the modest way in the house because the plaintif’s husband who is none other than niece of Singanamala

Sathyanarayana. In order to perform marriage no joint family assets were sold. To avoid the plaintif’s share in the property, the will was created.

8.Basing on the aforesaid pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:- (1)Whether the plaint schedule properties are joint family/ ancestral properties or not ?

(2)Whether the will dated 31.8.96 is valid and binding on both parties?

(3)Whether registered partition deed dated 7.4.2009 is binding on both parties?

(4)Whether defendant No.3 is absolute owner of item No.4 and D2 is absolute owner of item no.5 ?

(5)To what relief?

9.During the course of trial, the plaintif herself was examined as P.W.1 and examined one third party as PW.2 besides -7- marking Exs.A1 to A5. Second defendant himself was examined as

DW.1 besides marking Exs.B.1 to B.19.

10.Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.

11.Issues 1 and 4:- The case of the plaintif in brief is as follows:- The plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of

Singanamala Sathyanarayana. He inherited the property of his mother, by name, Naramma and he sold the same and got purchased some of the properties in his name and some other properties in the name of

D2 and D3 i.e., items 4 and 5. D1 to D3 colluded together and created a will in respect of items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule property in their favour only in order to avoid share to the plaintif and other daughters of Singanamala Sathyanarayana. Thus the plaintif is having 1/9th share in the plaint schedule properties.

12.The case of the defendants 1 to 3 in brief is as follows:-

Items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Singanamala Sathyanarayana as he purchased with his own earnings. Item no.4 of the plaint schedule property is the exclusive property of D3 as it was purchased in his name by their father. Hence the members of family having any right over the plaint schedule properties. Item no.5 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by the 2nd defendant with his own earnings. Thus items 1 to 5 of the plaint schedule property are not joint family properties.

13.Before proceeding further, it is apt to have an understanding of the concept of ancestral property in a nutshell. Any property inherited up to four generations of male lineage from the father, father’s father or fathe’s father’s father i.e., father of -8- grandfather etc. is termed as ancestral property. Property inherited from mother, grandmother, uncle and even brother is not ancestral property. In ancestral property, the right of property accrues to the coparcener on birth. Daughter is also coparcener as per amended Act 2005 of section 6. Self acquired property means any property purchased by the individual with his/her own earnings.

14.A member of joint family who possess certain property in his name must establish that it is his self acquired property and not acquired from joint family funds, failing which presumption can be drawn that it is part of joint family property. The same was held in 2012 (5) ALD 161. In a suit for partition, the initial burden is on the plaintif to establish that the suit properties are joint family properties and that there was adequate nucleus out of which the acquisitions could have been made. The same was held in 2011 (2) ALT 362.

15.Now we have to see whether the plaintif is able to establish that the suit properties are joint family properties or ancestral properties as pleaded by her. According to the plaintif, their father got some property in partition deed between him and his brother from their mother and that he sold the said property and purchased the plaint schedule properties, some in his name and some in the name of the defendants 2 and 3 i.e., items 4 and 5. Thus all the properties are not self acquired properties of Singanamala Sathyanarayana or defendants 2 and 3. Plaintif filed Ex.A5 partition deed to establish the joint family nucleus. There is no cross-examination to P.W.1 on Ex.A5 by counsel for D1 to D3. On the other hand, in cross-examination of PW.1 by the counsel for D4 to D6, it was elicited that item no.1 to 5 were purchased -9- by her father from the earnings of the properties derived from her mother and that her father did not derive any income from the business and that he sufered loss in the business. If really the defendants 1 to 3’s version is that items 1 to 3 are self acquired properties and he purchased the said properties from his own earnings i.e., derived from business, defendants have to establish the said fact by placing evidence to that efect. But except the oral testimony of the 2nd defendant, the defendants 1 to 3 failed to file any document showing that late Singanamala Sathyanarayana did business and earned amount and from that amount, he purchased items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule property and thus those properties are self acquired properties of the deceased Singanamala Sathyanarayana. On the other hand, the plaintif examined PW.2 one third party. He categorically deposed that the said Singanamala Sathyanarayana has landed properties in his village i.e., Apparacheruvu acquired through his mother Naramma and personally cultivated the same. The said

Sathyanarayana has got landed properties in Apparacheruvu village.

Sathyanarayana used to purchase property at Ananthapuramu out of agriculture work income. Except the income out of agriculture,

Singanamala Sathyanarayana has no other source of income to purchase the property at Ananthapuramu. He denied the suggestion put to him by the counsel for D1 to D3 that items 1 to 3 are self acquired properties of Singanamala Sathyanarayana and that the lands of Apparacheruvu village inherited from Naramma were not sold away by Sathyanarayana and all the lands are possession of heirs of

Sathyanarayana. In cross-examination of PW.2 by the counsel for D4 to

D8, he further reiterated that Sathyanarayana was agriculturist and -10- that he purchased the properties at Ananthapuramu with the amount got by him after selling agriculture lands. So as per the version of PW.2 also, it appears that Sathyanarayana did cultivation of the lands acquired from his mother Naramma and purchased the plaint schedule properties with that income. Moreover DW.1 himself deposed in his cross-examination at the time of purchase of item no.5 of the plaint schedule property, he was studying Degree and that his father paid sale consideration and purchased property in item no.5 in his name.

He also admitted that item no.5 was purchased jointly in his name and in the name of Premavathamma and item no.6 in the name of D3. He further admitted that by that time the age of D3 was about 14 years.

So as per the evidence of DW.1, it further makes clear that all the properties are purchased by Singanamala Sathyanarayana, some in the name of D2 and D3 and some in his name and that they are all joint family properties, but not ancestral properties and that the defendants 1 to 3 failed to establish that items 4 and 5 are the self acquired properties of D2 and D3 and not acquired from joint family funds.

Hence it can safely be concluded that items 1 to 7 are the joint family properties of the plaintif and defendants and not self acquired property of Singanamala Sathyanarayana and items 4 and 5 are not the self acquired properties of D2 and D3. Accordingly, issues 1 and 4 are answered.

16.ISSUES 2 and 3:- The case of defendants 1 to 3 in brief is as follows:- Singanamala Sathyanarayana executed a registered will dated 31.8.1996 in sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing item No.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule property in favour of the defendants 1 to 3, later the defendants 1 to 3 alone have partitioned item No.1 to 3 of the -11- plaint schedule property under registered partition deed dated 7.4.2009.

17.The case of plaintif and defendants 4 to 8 in brief is as follows:- Defendants 1 to 3 managed the Sub-Registrar,

Ananthapuramu and created the will to avoid giving share to plaintif and D4 to D8. S. Sathyanarayana was bed ridden and not able to walk or act independent without the support of others at the time of his grand daughter’s marriage which was performed on 26.5.1992. S.

Sathyanarayana was completely bed ridden and he had unconscious and not in sound condition since 1 or 1 ½ years prior to his death.

Hence the execution of will by S. Sathyanarayana does not arise and it is created. The will dated 31.8.1996 is not valid and binding on both parties as Singanamala Sathyanarayana is not competent to execute the will in respect of joint family properties. Even assuming that the said Sathyanarayana is competent to execute the said will, the defendants 1 to 3 have to establish that the will was executed by the said Sathyanarayana in a sound mind voluntarily i.e., with his own will and that there are no suspicious circumstances by filing the registered will and proving the said will by examining one of the attestor of the said will. But for the reasons best known to the defendants 1 to 3, they did not choose to file the original will before the Court and mark it as an exhibit. But they simply filed xerox certified copy of will as Ex.B6 and certified copy of registered will as Ex.B5. Though the defendants 1 to 3 filed an application to reopen the matter for examining the one of the attestors of the will, the said application was dismissed due to non- filing of original will and for other reasons, on merits. Moreover the plaintif also filed Ex.A2 showing the health condition of the deceased -12-

Singanamala Sathyanarayana as on 26.5.1995 i.e., at the time of marriage of his grand-daughter. DW.1 also admitted in his cross- examination that one of the photographs marked as Ex.A2 is that of his father and his relative and that he and his brother Surendra were bringing his father as shown in photograph marked as Ex.A2 when he was attending the marriage. As seen from that photograph, it shows that the said Sathyanarayana was not able to move freely and completely bedridden and sufering with ailments. So it also makes suspicion about the health condition of Sathyanarayana by the time of execution of alleged will marked under Exs.B4 and B5. So it is not safe to believe that original of Exs.B4 and B5 was executed by

Sathyanarayana. As seen from the recitals of Ex.B5, B.6 it shows that no property was given to daughters and property was given to some of testator. So it is also one of the suspicious circumstances. No evidence is led by D1 to D3 to remove the said suspicious circumstances. Hence I am of view that the will dated 31.8.1996 was not proved by D1 to D3 under due process of law. On that ground also the said will is not valid and binding on both parties. Hence I hold that the will dated 31.8.1996 is not valid and binding on both parties. When the will is not valid, the registered partition deed dated 7.4.2009 is not binding on both parties. Accordingly, issues 2 and 3 are answered.

18.ISSUE No.5:- In view of findings on issues 1 to 4, the defendants 1 to 8, who are the joint family members/legal heirs of Singanamala

Sathyanarayana are entitled to 1/9th share each in the plaint schedule property. Thus I am of the view that the plaintif is entitled for preliminary decree as prayed for.

-13-

19.In the result, the suit is decreed preliminarily as prayed for with costs.

Dictated to Stenographer and transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 26th day of February,

2019.

Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs & STs Cases – Cum – VIII Additional District Judge, FAC III Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Plaintif Defendants

P.W.1 R.Prameelamma DW1: Singanamala Viswanatham.

P.W.2 K.Pothalayappa.

Exhibits marked for Plaintif

Ex.A.1: Genealogy.

Ex.A.2: Photographs 6 in number and CD.

Ex.A.3: Tax receipts for item No.4 of the plaint schedule from 1994 to 2011.

Ex.A.4: Water receipts for item No.4 of the plaint schedule property from 1984 to 1997.

Ex.A.5: Registration extract of registered partition deed dated 10.7.1960.

Exhibits marked for defendants

Ex.B117.6.1974Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Venugopal Setty and others in favour of Sathyanarayana and Tabjula Gopal.

Ex.B211.5.1967Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by S.Kesavaiah in favour of Sathyanarayana and S.Subramanyam.

-14-

Ex.B310.6.1996Certified copy of registered relinquishment deed executed by S.Subramanyam in favour of Sathyanarayana.

Ex.B422.7.1970Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Venkataramaiah in favour of Sathyanarayana.

Ex.B531.8.1986Certified copy of registered will executed by Sathyanarayana obtained from Sub Registrar Office’s office, Ananthapuramu.

Ex.B631.8.1986Xerox certified copy of registered will executed by Sathyanarayana obtained from the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

Ex.B77.4.2009Certified copy of registered partition deed executed in between defendants 1 to 3.

Ex.B825.5.1978Certified copy of registered partition deed executed by Challa Lakshumma in favour of the 3rd defendant.

Ex.B95.7.1973Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Sunkamma in favour of the 2nd defendant.

Ex.B1011.10.1999Certified copy of decree in OS 140/1994 along with plaint plan on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Ex.B1111.10.1999Certified copy of judgment in OS 140/1994 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Ex.B124.10.2002Certified copy of judgment in AS 1/2000 on the file of III Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Ex.B134.10.2002Certified copy of decree in AS 1/2000 on the file of III Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Ex.B14--Computerized account extract issued by Indian Overseas Bank, Ananthapuramu regarding the loan obtained on item No.2 of the plaint schedule property.

Ex.B151.11.2014Property tax demand notice issued by Ananthapuramu Municipal Corporation regarding item No.2 of plaint schedule property.

Ex.B163.3.2015Property tax receipt issued by Ananthapuramu -15-

Municipal Corporation regarding item No.2 of plaint schedule property.

Ex.B17--Bunch of property tax receipts issued by Ananthapuramu Municipal Corporation regarding item No.1 of plaint schedule property in favour of the 2nd defendant (4 in number)

Ex.B18--Bunch of property tax receipts issued by Ananthapuramu Municipal Corporation regarding item No.1 of plaint schedule property in favour of the 3rd defendant (4 in number)

Ex.B1923.9.2016Certified copy of Registered sale deed.

III Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu (FAC)

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(BEFORE THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU)

Present:- Smt P.Kamala Devi, Chairman-cum-VIII Addl. District Judge, FAC III Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Thursday, the 21st day of February, 2019

M.V.O.P. No.385/2004

Between :

… Petitioner

1.Harijana Hanumakka

and

1.P.Khaja Mohiddin

2.Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, Ananthapuramu… Respondents

This petition coming on 11.2.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.K. Chandra Sekhar and Sri K. Gopal, Advocates for the petitioner and of Sri G. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate for 1st respondent and Sri A.G.Neelakanta Reddy, Advocate for the 2nd respondent, this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This claim petition has been filed U/ss 140 and 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 on behalf of legal representatives of dead body Harijana Janardhana (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) with a prayer to pass a decree in favour of petitioner and against respondents for payment of compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest from the date of accident till the date of payment and for costs of the petition.

2.THE MATERIAL AVERMENTS OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN BRIEF

ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 2

Petitioner is the mother of the deceased Harijana Janardhana. He is young and energetic school going student, having bright future on his career and hails from very poor community. He was getting good marks in the school. On 24.12.2003 at 3.45 pm., at Hanimireddy Palli village of

Beluguppa Mandal, the deceased Harijana Janardhana was standing at the left side of the Tar road i.e., which was leading from Kalyandurg to

Ananthapuramu, a mini lorry bearing No.AP-02-U-5220 which was going to

Ananthapuramu from Kalyandurg in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased boy. The boy sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Immediately the driver of the vehicle by name Bhaskar jumped from the vehicle and ran away from the spot on seeing the deceased.

3.A case has been registered by Beluguppa police in

Cr.No.59/2003 U/ss. 304-A IPC. The 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle and 2nd respondent is insurer of the crime vehicle and they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the petition.

4.Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counters. The 1st respondent filed a counter denying most of the allegations submitted in the petition and submitted as follows:- He does not admit the age and education of the deceased and the petitioner. The deceased was not earning member and the petitioner is not depending on the deceased. The accident occurred due to the sole rash and negligent driving of the deceased boy as he suddenly came across the road and met with an accident. The driver was careful and cautious. Hence the 1st respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The claim is highly excessive and exaggerative. He has insured the vehicle with the 2nd respondent- 3 company. The driver has driving license at the time of accident. There are no violations and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence the 2nd respondent-company is liable to pay compensation. Therefore he prays to dismiss the OP against him.

5.The 2nd Respondent filed counter denying most of the allegations submitted in the petition and submitted as follows:- This petition is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of driver of the mini lorry bearing No.AP-02-U-5220. The company is not aware about the age of the deceased and he was a school going boy or not. This respondent does not admit the manner of the accident as described in the petition. The driver of the crime vehicle had no valid driving license as on the date of accident.

The claim of compensation is highly excessive and exaggerated. The interest has to be reckoned from the date of award and not from the date of filing of the petition and as per guidelines of Nationalized bank. Hence he prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

6.Considering the above said pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

1.Whether the accident occurred on 24.12.2003 due to rash and negligent driving of the Mini Lorry bearing No.AP-02-U-5220 by its driver, dashed against the deceased and caused his death?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation?

If so, to what amount and from which respondent?

3. To what relief?

7.During the course of trial the petitioner herself was examined as PW1 and she examined one other person who is working as Head- 4

Master,M.P.U.P.School, Hanimireddy Palli of Beluguppa Mandal as PW2 besides marking Exs.A1 to A6. The Assistant Manager of 2nd respondent is examined as RW1 and he examined Junior Assistant in RTA Office,

Ananthapuramu as RW2 besides marking Exs.B1 and B2. No evidence was adduced by the 1st respondent.

8.As seen from the record, it appears that this tribunal delivered judgment on merits on 08.11.2006. Aggrieved by the judgment, the petitioner herein preferred appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh Vide MACMA.No.2809/2006 alleging that meager compensation was awarded by the tribunal, seeking to enhance the compensation and to fasten the liability to the 2nd respondent/insurance company. On which the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana remanded the matter

in its judgment dated 07.08.2018 by setting aside, the order dated 08.11.2006 in this OP, with a direction to dispose of the OP afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both sides. On receipt of the orders in MACMA.No.2809/2006, this Tribunal issued notices to both parties/Counsels and after receipt of notice to both counsels, this court directed them to submit their arguments. Thereafter this court heard the counsel for petitioner and treated as heard for the respondents 1 and 2 as

R1 and R2 did not submit any arguments in spite of taking several opportunities and the matter was posted conditionally to submit their arguments. Perused the entire records.

9.ISSUE No.1:-The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows,

On 24.12.2003 at about 3.45 pm., the deceased Harijana

Janardhana was standing on the left side of the Tar road, which was leading from Kalyandurg to Ananthapuramu, a Mini lorry bearing No.AP- 5 02-U-5220 which was going to Ananthapuramu from Kalyandurg in high speed and in rash and negligent manner dashed against the standing boy i.e., the deceased on which the deceased boy died on the spot with grievous injuries. Immediately the driver of the vehicle by name Bhaskar jumped from the vehicle and ran away from the spot on seeing the deceased.

10.As seen from the record it makes clear that though the 1st respondent filed counter, he did not contest the matter during course of enquiry, as no witnesses were examined by the 1st respondent and not cross-examined P.Ws.

11.The case of the 2nd respondent is as follows:

This petition is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of driver of the mini lorry bearing No.AP-02-U-5220. This respondent does not admit the manner of the accident as described in the petition. The driver of the crime vehicle had no valid driving license as on the date of accident.

12.In order to prove the case of petitioner, she herself was examined as PW1 besides marking Exs.A1 to A5. She swore in her chief affidavit in the same lines of petition averments. Coming to her cross examination it was suggested by the counsel for the 2nd respondent that there was no rash and negligent driving of the Mini lorry and it was proceeding slowly on the left side of the road and that the accident took place due to gross negligence on the part of the deceased himself, for which she denied the said suggestion. There is no cross-examination to

PW1 by the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 regarding the documents marked under Exs.A1 to A5. So those documents can be safely relied 6 upon since they remains unchallenged. In Ex.A1 it is mentioned that on 24.12.2003 while the complainant was working in the field of Yerri Swamy, her son Janardhan came there at about 3.45 pm., and standing on the left side of the road and called her. Meanwhile one Mini lorry bearing No.AP- 02-U-5220 which was coming from Kalyandurg and going to

Ananthapuramu in high speed without blowing horn and dashed Janardhan who was standing on the side of the road, due to which Janardhan died on the spot. The driver of the Mini lorry jumped from the lorry and ran away.

The accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the Mini lorry. The contents mentioned in Ex.A1 and the oral evidence of

PW1 clearly establishes that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mini lorry i.e., crime vehicle and due to which the deceased Janardhan died on the spot. Hence I hold that the accident occurred on 24.12.2003 due to rash and negligent driving of the

Mini Lorry bearing No.AP-02-U-5220 by its driver, dashed against the deceased and caused his death. Accordingly this issue is answered.

13.ISSUE No.2:-There is no dispute that the petitioner is no other than the mother of the deceased Janardhan. In view of the finding in

Issue No.1, the petitioner is entitled for compensation due to the death of her son in the motor accident.

14.Coming to the persons who are liable to pay compensation, according to the 2nd respondent, the driver of crime vehicle was not having valid license as on the date of accident, knowing the same the 1st respondent permitted to drive the vehicle by the driver of the crime vehicle, as such 1st respondent owner is alone liable to pay compensation.

Though the 2nd respondent contended in his counter that this petition is 7 bad for non joinder of driver of the crime vehicle, but the same was not suggested to Pw1 or averred in the chief affidavit of RW1. Hence it can be said that the 2nd respondent did not raise that dispute subsequently during enquiry of this case. Though this application is bad for non joinder of driver of crime vehicle, as there is no serious objections by both the contesting respondents, I am of view that this petition is maintainable, even in the absence of driver of the crime vehicle.

15.In order to prove the case of the 2nd respondent, he examined

Junior Assistant in RTA Office as RW2 besides marking Exs.B1 and B2. He categorically deposed in his chief examination that one D.Bhaskara Babu,

S/o.Venkataramanappa of Guduru village of Narpala Mandal was granted driving license bearing No.2510/2000 and it is LMV non transport license with effect from 18.08.2000 to 17.08.2020 and that there is no license granted to the above person for any transport vehicle. As seen from Ex.B2 i.e., driving license extract of above D.Bhaskar Babu, S/o Venkata

Ramanappa, it shows that license for LMV was granted from 18.08.2000 to 17.08.2020 and that LMV was renewed from 30.12.2003 to 29.12.2006.

As seen from the record it appears that the accident took place on 24.12.2003. So it makes clear that the driver of the crime vehicle, by name, Bhaskar was having non-transport driving license as on the date of accident and that he was not having transport license as on the date of accident. Coming to cross-examination of RW.2, he admitted that the license covered under Ex.B2 is a valid license by the date of alleged incident and that the driver should possess badge to drive a transport vehicle. He further admitted that if there was no badge, one should not drive any vehicle and payment of penalty is sufficient and the badge is only for specific locality.

8

16.In 2018 SAR Civil 78 SC, it was held that driver having license to drive LMV can drive non-transport vehicle and that there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement and hence there was no breach of conditions of policy. In those circumstances, the apex Court held that driver, owner and insurer are jointly held liable to pay compensation. I am of the view that the findings in the above decision are applicable to the present facts on hand as the facts and circumstances of case in both the cases are one and the same. In the present case on hand, the driver of the crime vehicle was not having LMV transport license, but he was having

LMV non-transport license as on the date of accident. In view of findings in the above decision, there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement to drive the crime vehicle by its driver who is having LMV license and that there was no breach of condition of policy. Therefore, I am of the view that both owner and insurer of the crime vehicle i.e., the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

17.Coming to quantum of compensation, it is the case of the petitioner that the deceased was young and energetic school going student having bright future of his career and hails from very poor Harijana community and he was getting good marks in the school and lost his bright future. Thus she is entitled to claim compensation to a tune of

Rs.2,00,000/-.

18.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, she herself was examined as PW.1 and she examined the Head Master of MPUP School,

Hanimireddipalli of Beluguppa Mandal as PW.2. PW.1 swore in her chief affidavit in the same lines of petition averments. PW.2 deposed that the deceased Janardhana, s/o Vannurappa was the student in his school in the 9 year 2004 and he studied 6th class by 2004 in his school and Ex.A6 is the certificate issued by him to the petitioner on 10.2.2004, wherein he mentioned that Janardhan obtained marks therein in 6th class in his school.

He extracted those marks from the mark register of 6th class of his school.

Coming to his cross-examination, he deposed that he has not brought the original marks register to this court. He denied the suggestion that to help the petitioner he got mentioned in Ex.A6 that the deceased got very good marks and he was a brilliant student and that Ex.A6 is created. The evidence of PW.6 shows that Ex.A6 is not duly proved as PW.2 failed to bring marks register maintained by him from which he extracted the marks of the deceased as mentioned in Ex.A6. As PW.2 did not give any opportunity to the insurance company to verify the genuineness of Ex.A6 on verifying the original marks register maintained by them, I am of the view that it is not safe to believe Ex.A6 marks list. According to PW.1, she is living on cooly work and that another son of PW.1 is deaf and dumb. As the petitioner failed to place any meritorious features of the deceased, I am of the view that it is just and proper to treat the notional income of the deceased as daily worker and he may earn averagely Rs.750/- per month as there may not be any cooly work for each and every day and by that time the daily wage for cooly is 30 to 40 per day as per the evidence of

PW.1. Coming to the age of the deceased, as the petitioner failed to file any proof regarding the age of the deceased, I am of the view that it is safe to rely on the age mentioned in inquest report which is marked as

Ex.A2. In Ex.A6 the age of the deceased is mentioned as 12 years. Taking into consideration of age and notional earnings of the deceased, I am of the view that it is just and proper to award compensation to a tune of

Rs.80,000/- towards future earnings. The petitioner is also entitled to a 10 tune of Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses against both the respondents. In total the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Both the respondents are liable to pay aforesaid compensation to the petitioners together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Accordingly this issue is answered.

19.ISSUE No.3:- In view of finding on Issue Nos.1 and 2 as mentioned above, this petition shall be allowed partly with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Respondents No.1 and 2 are liable to pay aforesaid compensation to the petitioners together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Rest of the claim shall be dismissed without costs. Respondent No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit said compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of petition within 30 days from this day. On deposit of said compensation amount, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw entire compensation amount awarded along with accrued interest thereon and the entire costs of petition payable to her.

20.In the result, this petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Respondents No.1 and 2 are liable to pay aforesaid compensation to the petitioners together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Rest of the claim is dismissed without costs.

Respondent No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit said compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of petition within 30 days from this day. On deposit of said compensation amount, the petitioner is 11 entitled to withdraw entire compensation amount awarded along with accrued interest thereon and the entire costs of petition payable to her.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 21st day of February, 2019.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE),ANANTHAPURAMU,

FAC III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE),ANANTHAPURAMU.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS:

PW.1 : Harijana Hanumakka. RW.1 B.Ramachandrappa

PW.2 : K.Sreenivasa Murthy RW.2 M.V.Babaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.A.1 : Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.59/2003 of Beluguppa PS.

Ex.A.2 : Attested copy of inquest report.

Ex.A.3 : Attested copy of post mortem examination certificate.

Ex.A.4 : Attested copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A.5 : Attested copy of MVI report.

Ex.A.6 : Study certificate of the deceased issued by MPUP School, Hanimireddypalli.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B.1: Certified copy of insurance policy.

Ex.B.2: Certified copy of driving license extract.

CHAIRMAN/III ADJ (FAC)

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(BEFORE THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU)

Present:- Smt P.Kamala Devi, Chairman-cum-VIII Addl. District Judge, FAC III Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Thursday, the 21st day of February, 2019

M.V.O.P. No.385/2004

Between :

1.Harijana Hanumakka, W/o. Late Vannurappa, Hanimireddy Palli, Beluguppa Mandal, Ananthapuramu District … Petitioner

And

1.P. Khaja Mohiddin, S/o.Sattar, Gugudu, Narpala Mandal.

2.Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company,… Respondents Ananthapuramu.

This claim petition has been filed U/ss 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 on behalf of legal representatives of dead body Harijana Janardhana (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) with a prayer to pass a decree in favour of petitioner and against respondents for payment of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest from the date of accident till the date of payment and for costs of the petition.

Petition Presented on:23.09.2004.

Value for Court fee is Rs.2,00,000 /- and a Court fee of Rs.1,360/- is paid under Rule 475 of

A.P.M.V. Rules.

This petition coming this day for disposal before me in the presence of Sri P.Venkatanarayana, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri S.K. Chandra Sekhar and Sri K. Gopal, Advocates for the petitioner and of Sri G. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate for 1st respondent and Sri A.G.Neelakanta Reddy, Advocate for the 2nd respondent, this matter having stood over till this day for consideration,, DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:-

1.that the petition be and the same is hereby partly allowed with proportionate costs.

2.that the awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only).

3.that the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay aforesaid compensation to the petitioner together with accrued interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

4.that the rest of the claim is dismissed without costs.

2

5.that the respondent 1 and 2 are directed to deposit said compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and cots of petition within 30 days from this day.

6.that the deposit of the said compensation amount, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw entire compensation amount awarded along with accrued interest thereon and the entire costs of petition payable her.

7.that the advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-

8.that the respondents do pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,612/- towards proportionate costs of the petition and do bear their own costs of Rs.2-00 (Other costs not certified).

Given- under my hand and seal of the court this the 21st day of February, 2019.

Chairman, MACT-Cum VIII Addl.

District Judge, Ananthapuramu.

FAC III Addl. District Judge, (FTC) Ananthapuramu.

TABLE OF COSTS FOR

Petitioner Respondents Rs. Ps Rs. Ps Stamp on main petition1,360-00-- Stamp on vakalath2-002-00 Process50-00 Typing charges100-00 Writing charges100-00 Advocate's fee1,000-00 Total 2,612-002-00 (F.C memo not filed other costs not certified) *- Proportionate Cost of Rs.1,612/-

FAC III ADJ

In the Court of :III Addl. District Judge

Case No. :EP/0000527/2017 Patel Rathnamma Vs M. Raja Gopal Reddy

Date : 21-02-2019

Business: D.Hr. counsel filed a memo stating that the matter is settled out of court and prays to terminate the EP and the memo is recorded. Hence, this EP is terminated. Nature of : TERMINATED Disposal Disposal Date: 21-02-2019 III Addl. District Judge

In the Court of :III Addl. District Judge

Case No. :EP/0000789/2017 M/s. Tata Motors Finance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder H.M.P. Amarnath Rao Vs Lokunath Reddy Mandlepalli

Date : 20-02-2019

Business: Batta not paid. No representation. Hence, EP is dismissed for default. Nature of : DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Disposal Date: 20-02-2019 III Addl. District Judge