Smt.Y.Renuka

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MACT-cum-PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Present: Smt.RENUKA YARA,

Principal District Judge.

Tuesday, the 27th day of October, 2020

M.V.OP. No. 205 of 2012

BETWEEN:

Raheemunnisa Begum, W/o. Syed Maqbool Miya, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.8-7-424/1, Talab Katta, Rahmathnagar, Hyderabad. … Petitioner AND

1.Kavali Venkataiah, S/o. K.Pochaiah, Aged Major, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. H.No.3-231, Morangapally Village, Mominpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.The Regional Manager, Cholamandalam, M/s.General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Head Office, Dear House, 2nd Floor, N.S.C Post Road, Chennai-600001. … Respondents

This Petition is coming before me for a final hearing on 26.06.2019 in the presence of Sri P.Sampurna Anand, counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Ramachandra Reddy, counsel for respondent No.2; respondent No.1 set exparte and upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

A W A R D

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

Vehicle Act against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking compensation of

Rs.12,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.

The case of the petitioner is that she along with her sister went to 2.

Sadasivapet Village, Medak District on 20.08.2011 in an auto bearing No. AP 09 UM/TR-6979 and while returning to Vikarabad, when the auto reached

Mekavanampally village, Mominpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, an auto

MVOP 205 of 2012 Page 2 of 13 bearing No. AP 28 TB 7090 came in opposite direction and dashed the auto in which the petitioner was travelling. The petitioner received grievous injury and her right leg was fractured at two places i.e., fracture of upper 1/3 tibia right, fracture of patella right.

The police, Mominpet registered a case against the driver of auto bearing 3.

No. AP 09 UM-T/R 6979 in Cr.No.100/2011.

The petitioner was shifted to Government Civil Hospital for first aid and 4.

later shifted to Lazarus Hospital, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. The petitioner underwent operation on 22.08.2011, thereafter the petitioner is unable to walk.

The petitioner pleaded that she was earning Rs.4,500/- per month by 5.

doing private employment. The petitioner has three children and she was bedridden. The petitioner pleaded that she was hale and healthy until the accident, that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1. The petitioner pleaded that the respondent No.1 is the owner, respondent No.2 is the insurance company/insurer and respondent No.1 is insured. Therefore, the petitioner is claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- jointly and severally from respondent Nos.1 and 2.

The respondent No.1 remained exparte. 6.

The respondent No.2 opposed the claim petition by filing written counter 7.

denying date, time, place of accident, involvement of auto bearing No. AP 09

UM – T/R 6979, accident occurring due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of auto bearing No. AP 28 TB 7090, the injuries suffered by the petitioner, treatment taken and the surgeries underwent. The respondent No.2 pleaded that the owner and insurer of auto bearing No. AP 09 UM – T/R 6979 are proper and necessary parties. Further, it is claimed that the owner of auto entrusted the vehicle to a driver who was not holding valid driving licence.

Further, no information was given to the insurance company about occurrence of accident by the police and therefore claimed violation of section 158 (6) of

MVOP 205 of 2012 Page 3 of 13

M.V.Act. The respondent No.2 denied the age and income of the petitioner and the petitioner being bedridden. The respondent No.2 denied having issued insurance policy to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 sought protection under section 170 of M.V.Act apart from protection under sections 147 and 149 of M.V.Act. The respondent No.2 claimed that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and further pleaded that the interest awarded cannot exceed 6% p.a. On the basis of aforementioned grounds, the respondent No.2 pleaded that the petition be dismissed.

On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues have been settled 8.

for trial.

1) Whether there was an accident resulting in injuries to the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No. AP 28 TB 7090 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, what quantum and from whom?

3) To what relief?

The petitioner got examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A22. 9.

The respondent No.2 got examined RW.1 and got marked Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy.

The respondent No.2 filed petition under section 170 (b) of M.V.Act and 10.

the same is allowed on 20.03.2019.

ISSUE No.1: 11.

PW.1 i.e., petitioner herein filed evidence affidavit restating the manner of occurrence of accident on account of collision of two autos which were travelling in opposite direction on 20.08.2011 at 9.15 pm at Mekavanampally

Village, Mominpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. PW.1 stated that she received grievous injuries on her right leg, right hand, back and other injuries all over the body. PW.1 was shifted to Community Health Center at Vikarabad for first

MVOP 205 of 2012 Page 4 of 13 aid and later shifted to Lazarous Hospital where she was treated as inpatient from 21.08.2011 to 29.08.2011. In cross examination, PW.1 stated that there were four persons travelling in the auto, that the accident occurred at 9.00 pm and she did not give report to the police. PW.1 stated that the accident occurred due to collision of two autos in opposite direction. PW.1 denied receiving injury only to her right leg.

PW.1 is the injured petitioner who is the eye witness to the accident. 12.

According to PW.1 on 20.08.2011 at 9.15 pm when she was traveling to

Vikarabad from Sadashivpet in auto bearing No. AP 09 UM T/R 697, when the auto was near Mekavanampally, an auto bearing No. AP 28 TB 7090 which was coming in the opposite direction from Mominpet driven in rash and negligent manner dashed the auto in which she was travelling. To this evidence of PW.1, except giving the suggestion that the accident occurred due to collusion between two autos coming in opposite direction, there is no suggestion to the effect that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of crime auto.

The contents of Ex.A1 FIR which was registered on the same day and the 13.

contents of the investigation as reported in Ex.A2 charge sheet reveal that on 20.08.2011 at 2145 hours when PW.1’s auto reached Mekavanampally, the driver of crime auto has driven his auto in rash and negligent manner and dashed auto bearing No. AP 09 UM T/R 697 resulting in accident and injuries to the passengers. As per Ex.A3, PW.1 suffered grievous injury of fracture of tibia and patella. Ex.A5 shows that PW.1 was treated for the injuries sustained in an accident on 20.08.2011.

The entire oral and documentary evidence shows that PW.1 was 14.

travelling in an auto and the same was dashed by another auto driven in opposite direction by the respondent No.1 i.e., driver of the crime auto.

Accordingly, a complaint is registered against the driver of the crime auto. The charge sheet is also filed against the driver of crime auto without there being

MVOP 205 of 2012 Page 5 of 13 any allegation about negligence on the part of the driver of the auto in which

PW.1 was travelling. In the circumstances, there is evidence only against the driver of the crime auto. In case, the respondents want to contest the OP to prove contributory negligence, the respondents have to examine a witness in support of the pleadings. Such is not the case in the present OP. In the circumstances, no allegation about contributory negligence on the part of the driver of auto in which PW.1 was travelling can be taken into consideration.

Thus, on the basis of both the oral and documentary evidence, it is held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of auto bearing No. AP 28 TB 7090.

ISSUE No.2 : 15.

There is dispute about liability to pay compensation by the respondent

No.2. The main contention of respondent No.2 is that the driver of the crime auto did not possess transport licence, hence there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. In order to prove violation of terms and conditions of policy, the respondent No.2 examined RW.1 who is the Deputy Manager Legal of the insurance company. RW.1 deposed that the respondent No.1 approached the respondent No.2 for insurance policy for his auto bearing No. AP 28 TB 7090 and accordingly policy was issued in policy No. 3368/00423606/000/00 which was valid from 27.02.2011 to 26.02.2012. RW.1 deposed that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having effective and valid licence to drive the vehicle. As per the driving licence issued by the Licensing authority of Ranga

Reddy District, the driver is having licence to drive auto rikshaw LMV Non-

Transport only. While so, the driver must hold a valid driving licence to drive the crime vehicle by holding a transport endorsement. Without having such driving licence, the crime vehicle was driven at the time of accident. Lastly,

RW.1 stated that at the material time of accident, the crime vehicle did not possess valid permit to ply the vehicle and the driver was not having valid and

MVOP 205 of 2012 Page 6 of 13 effective licence i.e., there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and therefore deposed that respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation.

RW.1 got marked Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy.

In cross examination, RW.1 admitted the policy being in force, two 16.

vehicles being involved in the accident and providing insurance coverage to the crime vehicle. Further, it is admitted that the autos are designed for the purpose of transport of goods or passengers and that the LMV includes transport vehicle. RW.1 deposed that the driver of crime vehicle possessed a non transport LMV licence, however denied that the same is valid to drive the crime vehicle which is a transport vehicle. It is deposed that the respondent

No.2 company issued insurance policy for auto bearing No. AP 28 TB 7090 under a valid policy. However, liability to pay compensation is disputed on the ground that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess effective and valid driving licence. More particularly, the accused possessed driving licence to drive auto rickshaw LMV only but did not possess driving licence with transport endorsement.

It is a point to be noted that initially driving licence is issued to drive 17.

LMV (Light Motor Vehicle) and after a certain time period, the same is endorsed with transport licence. The driving skills required to drive both LMV and transport vehicle are the same. The only difference is that a transport endorsement is made after certain time of issuance of LMV licence. In the circumstances, this court does not find any violation of provisions of the policy or M.V.Act. In the circumstances, the respondent No.1 being owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

RW.1 deposed that there is contributory negligence on the part of the 18.

driver of the auto in which the petitioner was travelling as the accident occurred in the middle of the road. The accident occurred in the night time in

MVOP 205 of 2012 Page 7 of 13 the middle of the road and therefore it is claimed that both the drivers are equally liable for causing the accident. RW.1 claimed that the driver of the auto in which the petitioner was travelling is also equally liable for occurrence of the accident. However, it is to be noted that the case is booked only against the driver of the crime auto. The evidence of RW.1 who is not an eye witness cannot be considered with regard to contributory negligence. In the circumstances, the issue of contributory negligence cannot be taken into consideration.

On the issue of payment of quantum of compensation paid, PW.1 stated 19.

that after the occurrence of the accident, she was shifted to Community Health

Center at Vikarabad for first aid and later shifted to Lazarous Hospital where she was treated as inpatient from 21.08.2011 to 29.08.2011. Upon examining the injury, it was found that there was fracture of right tibia and fracture of patella and operation was conducted to treat the fracture. Due to complications, the petitioner was taken to Ananth Hospital and Owaisi

Hospital, where she was treated from 21.06.2012 to 02.07.2012. A surgery was conducted to her spine. PW.1 has also taken treatment at New Life Hospital,

Uday Clinic where she was admitted as inpatient from 19.03.2013 to 30.03.2013. The petitioner pleaded that she has spent more than

Rs.2,87,774/- towards hospital expenditure, medication, extra nourishment etc,. The petitioner pleaded that total hip replacement and total knee replacement cannot be done due to paucity of funds as the estimated cost would be Rs.5,50,250/-. The petitioner pleaded that she is unable to perform her day to day activity as she is permanently disabled with 87% disability. As a housewife by doing petty works PW.1 earned Rs.4,500/- and contributed the same for the maintenance of the family. Further, after the accident PW.1 became totally bedridden and dependant and all her family members are subjected to mental agony. In the circumstances, PW.1 claimed compensation

MVOP 205 of 2012 Page 8 of 13 of Rs.12,00,000/- towards loss of earning, hospital expenditure, medication etc,. from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

PW.1 stated that she was treated under Arogyasri scheme in the 20.

hospital. The treatment was given as an inpatient for nine days in the hospital.

PW.1 denied the suggestion that there is no connection between the treatment taken at Owasi Hospital and Uday Clinic and the injuries sustained in the accident. The disability certificate was given by the Medical Board of King Koti

Government Hospital and not by a camp without any examination.

PW.2 is a consultant Orthopedic Surgeon who treated the petitioner from 21.

19.03.2013 up to 30.03.2013. PW.2 stated that PW.1 received multiple fractures in a road traffic accident for which she was treated at various hospitals. PW.2 stated that the petitioner underwent surgery of her spine at

Owasi hospital and leg surgery took place at Lazarus hospital. PW.2 stated that petitioner came to the hospital with complaint about inability to walk and she was examined by the neuro physician, cardiologist and anesthetist. The petitioner’s MRI shows injury to her spinal cord. During her stay in the hospital, the petitioner underwent D9 to D11 decompression of spinal cord and instrumented fusion. It was examined and noted that there was weakness in the lower limbs of petitioner and there was partial dislocation of the knee. PW.1 had injury to her hip, subsequently advised to undergo home physiotherapy.

PW.1 was treated up to 2015. PW.2 stated that the petitioner would require surgery to hip and knee for replacement with approximate cost of

Rs.6,50,000/-. PW.2 confirmed that Ex.A9 is issued by his hospital in the year 2015 and the cost would have increased subsequently. PW.2 deposed that

Exs.A10, A11, A12, A13, A15, A16, A18 and A19 are issued by Uday Clinic.

Upon examination of petitioner on the date of her examination on 29.01.2019,

PW.2 stated that PW.1 has significant weakness in her lower limb and difficulty in holding urine. PW.1 is wheel chair bound and requires help to do her

MVOP 205 of 2012 Page 9 of 13 activities. PW.2 deposed that the percentage of the disability of PW.1 is 80%. In cross examination, PW.2 stated that PW.1 was treated in different hospitals.

Further, PW.2 denied the suggestion that the injuries are not result of road traffic accident and also denied the suggestion that PW.1 can walk.

PW.3 is the Billing Manager of UDAI Clinic. PW.3 deposed that the 22.

petitioner was admitted in UDAI hospital on 19.03.2013 and discharged on 30.03.2013. PW.3 confirmed issuance of Exs.A10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 22 by UDAI Clinic. PW.3 deposed that the payment was made by the patient under Exs.A10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 18. Ex.A19 is the estimate for hip replacement and total knee replacement. In cross examination, PW.3 denied the bills being exaggerated.

PW.4 is the Consultant Neuro Surgeon of Owasi hospital. PW.4 deposed 23.

that on 15.06.2012 he saw the petitioner with history of road traffic accident.

Upon evaluation, the petitioner was found to have spinal injury with weakness in lower limbs and had no control on the bladder. The petitioner was operated on 21.06.2012 for spinal decompression and fixation. Thereafter, the petitioner was kept on physiotherapy, rehabtherapy and advised to take care of bladder bower and back. The petitioner was discharged on 02.07.2012 and came for follow up treatment on 20.12.2012. PW.4 deposed that neurologically the petitioner has not shown much improvement and therefore has been advised to continue physiotherapy. PW.4 in cross examination admitted that the surgery was performed under Aarogya Sree scheme.

PW.5 deposed that he is a Civil Assistant Surgeon since June, 2013, that 24.

the petitioner was brought to King Koti Hospital on 25.03.2015. On said date

PW.5 along with Dr. Sugnaneswar and Dr. V.Ramakrishnaiah examined and issued Ex.A20 disability certificate dt.25.03.2015. As per Ex.A20, the patient is having 87% of disability.

MVOP 205 of 2012 Page 10 of 13

With respect to the oral evidence of PW.2, the witness PW.2 treated PW.1 25.

at UDAI Clinic. PW.2’s evidence is about the treatment given to the spinal cord of PW.1, wherein there was surgery for decompression of D9 to D11 of spinal cord and instrumented fusion. PW.1 was admitted on 19.03.2013 with significant weakness of both lower limbs and partial dislocation of knee. There was injury of hip and after treatment PW.1 was discharged with advice to undergo physiotherapy. In view of the fact that the accident occurred on 20.08.2011 and PW.1 got admitted in UDAI Clinic on 19.03.2013, the counsel

for respondent No.2 vehemently argued that the injuries for which treatment

taken at UDAI Clinic is no way connected with the injuries which were treated at Lazarus hospital immediately following the accident. It is argued that as per discharge summary of Lazarus hospital marked under Ex.A5, PW.1 suffered only fracture to the right leg i.e., tibia and patella. As per Ex.A5, there is no mention about any injuries to the spinal cord. It is emphasized that the injury sustained by PW.1 were of March, 2013 according to PW.2. Therefore, the respondent No.2 denied connection between the injuries sustained in road traffic accident and the spinal cord injury. Hence, pleaded that the bills for treatment taken at UDAI Clinic cannot be considered while passing award.

In this regard, it is to be seen that PW.1 suffered accident on 20.08.2011, 26.

underwent surgery at Lazarus hospital. PW.1 was treated at Lazarus hospital from 21.08.2011 to 29.08.2011 and 16.09.2011 to 23.10.2011. According to

Ex.A5 discharge summary, the surgery was done on 22.08.2011, discharged with advice of follow up treatment. PW.1 was advised strict non weight barring, walking with a walker. Anybody who has suffered fracture of a leg may take about three to four months time for reunion of the fracture followed by some more time for actual resuming normal work. It is not possible for PW.1 to take up any serious activity to suffer any other injuries. Assuming that the backbone injury was not suffered in the accident, there is every possibility of

MVOP 205 of 2012 Page 11 of 13 such injury occurring as a result of consequence of the injuries suffered in the accident. The damage to the backbone could be a result of consequent fall at home while being treated for the injuries in the accident or due to continuous stay in bed or it is possible that the fracture to the backbone was not detected at Lazarus hospital. Also, the spinal injury would be invisible as compared to the fracture of the leg which is visible. In any case, the injury to the backbone of PW.1 could be a direct result of injuries in the accident or a consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, the respondent No.2 cannot deny liability to pay compensation for the treatment taken by the petitioners at

UDAI Clinic. The petitioner by examining PW.2, PW.4 has proven the bills marked under A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A16, A18 and A19. The evidence of

PW.2 and proof of A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A16, A18 and A19 are further confirmed by PW.3. In the circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled to payment of bills marked under Exs.A6, A7, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A16,

A18 and A19 amounting to Rs.2,87,774/-.

The treatment of PW.1 at Owasi hospital was done under Aarogya Sree. 27.

Therefore, there is no need for payment for the treatment at Owasi hospital.

The evidence of PW.5 is that he is a Civil Assistant Surgeon at King Koti 28.

hospital and Ex.A20 was issued by the King Koti hospital showing 87% permanent disability. Though the percentage of disability is 87% of both lower limbs according to Ex.A20, the functional disability is taken to be 100%. The petitioner claimed to be a private employee with income of Rs.4,500/- per month. No witness is examined in proof of private employment of PW.1, therefore the notional income of PW.1 as a housewife is taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. As per Exs.A2 and A5, the age of the petitioner is 30 years and the multiplier would be ‘17’. Accordingly, the loss of source of income is calculated at 3000 X 12 X 17 = Rs.6,12,000/-. In addition, the petitioner would be entitled to payment of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/-

MVOP 205 of 2012 Page 12 of 13 towards extra nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. On the basis of evidence of PW.2 and PW.3, in case the cost of future surgeries to the total replacement of hip and knee are considered, the same would costs

Rs.5,50,000/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to payment of award of

Rs.17,09,774/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. The petitioners are entitled to total compensation of Rs.17,09,774/-, therefore petitioner’s claim for

Rs.12,00,000/- is held to be reasonable and the same is awarded.

ISSUE No .3: 29.

In the result, the petition is allowed awarding the compensation of

Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) together with costs and future interest at 6% p.a from the date of filing of the OP till the date of realization payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondent

Nos.1 and 2 are granted one month time from the date of this order to deposit the compensation amount. Upon such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest and the remaining amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of two years. The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the Open Court on this the 27th day of October, 2020.

CHAIRMAN, MACT-cum-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: PW.1 : Raheemunnisa BegumRW.1 : K.Madhava Reddy PW.2 : Dr.Raghav Dutt Mulukurtla PW.3 : P.Satyanarayana PW.4 : Dr.Syed Ameer Basha Paspal PW.5 : Dr.P.Hanumanatha Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

MVOP 205 of 2012 Page 13 of 13

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS: Ex.A1Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.100/2011 Ex.A2Attested copy of charge sheet

Ex.A3Attested copy of MLC

Ex.A4Attested copy of application for the examination of injured

Ex.A5Discharge summary issued by Lazarus hospital

Ex.A6Cash receipts for Rs.4,700/- along with receipt, check out slip final bill, discharge summary (6 Nos) Ex.A7Bunch of medical bills for an amount of Rs.4,698/- (14 Nos.)

Ex.A8Discharge summary issued by Owaisi hospital

Ex.A9Bunch of medical bills for an amount of Rs.7,578/-

Ex.A10Bunch of receipts/bills issued by UDAI clinic for an amount of Rs.1,27,930/- Ex.A11Bunch of medical bills for an amount of Rs.13,047/-

Ex.A12Final bill issued by UDAI clinic for Rs.71,000/-

Ex.A13Receipt issued by UDAI clinic for an amount of Rs.48,000/-

Ex.A14Bill along with receipt for an amount of Rs.46,290/- towards implants issued by Arya implants Ex.A15Discharge summary issued by UDAI clinic for

Ex.A16Bunch of medical bills along with bills of MRI for an amout of Rs.27,618/- Ex.A17Photographs (2 Nos.)

Ex.A18Bunch of bills for an amount of Rs.7,913 (Nos.9)

Ex.A19Estimate certificate dt.13.10.2015

Ex.A20Disability certificate issued by Medical Board dt.25.03.2015

Ex.A21Bunch of prescriptions (39 Nos)

Ex.A22X-ray along with receipts, films (8 Nos.)

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Ex.B1 : Copy Insurance police

CHAIRMAN, MACT-cum-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT L.B.NAGAR,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: SMT.RENUKA YARA,

Principal District Judge

Saturday, the 31st day of October, 2020

Tr.OP. No. 168 of 2020

Between:

M/s. Priority Homes Private Limited, … Petitioner AND

Sardar Kartar Singh … Respondent/Plaintiff

Narpath Singh and others … Respondents/Respondents

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR IN

OS.No. 223 OF 2011

Between:

Sardar Kartar Singh … Plaintiff AND

Narpath Singh and others … Defendants

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 14.10.2020 in the presence of Sri Shyam S.Agrawal, Counsel for the petitioner; Sri S.Praveen Goud, counsel for respondent No.1; Sri M.Venkateshwar Rao, counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 9 and 16 and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till date, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under section 24 (b) (II) of CPC seeking 1.

withdrawal and transfer of suit in OS.No.223/2011 pending on the file of III

Page No. 2 of 12

Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar to any other

court for disposal in accordance with law.

The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 herein filed the 2.

suit in OS.No.223/2011 seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and declaration of certain registered conveyance deeds as null and void with respect to the property consisting of Ac.01-20 gts in Sy.No.2 at Rambagh,

Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner pleaded that they entered appearance and filed written statement.

The suit was pending for long time without any progress as the plaintiff did not come forward to proceed with the matter. In the interim, there have been several cases and several transfers have taken with respect to schedule property. The then owners sold the land to the petitioner herein and the land was given to one M/s.Maheshwari Developers for development.

The developer has taken over the property, obtained necessary permissions and sanctions and commenced the construction.

In the backdrop of several disputes with regard to the property, the 3.

owners and developer together filed suit in OS.No.569/2018 on the file of V

Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, initially temporary

injunction was granted, but subsequently dismissed on contest. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, a CMA has been preferred in

CMA.No.249/2019 before the Hon’ble High Court. Said appeal has been

allowed of judgment dt.08.06.2020. Several other proceedings are filed

before the revenue authorities and have not yet reached conclusion.

In the year 2016, the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy 4.

District ordered summons to some of the defendants and the matter was adjourned though the same was actually posted for trial. On 20.01.2017,

Page No. 3 of 12 the plaintiff came forward to proceed with the matter and filed evidence affidavit, subsequently the advocate on record withdrew the vakalat and the plaintiff was directed to appear in person on 05.10.2017. The plaintiff did not appear but the matter was posted for filing of Commissioner’s report.

The evidence of PW.1 was closed on 03.03.2017 and another witness as

PW.2 was examined on 09.03.2017. Thereafter, some applications were filed and the matter was pending till their disposal on 12.04.2017 and 22.06.2017. The evidence of plaintiff was closed on 20.03.2017. Then the matter was posted for defence evidence and after closing of defence evidence, was posted for arguments on 19.07.2018. Thereafter, PW.1 was recalled and cross examined by some defendants on 14.02.2020 and thereafter the matter was posted for arguments.

The plaintiff did not come forward to forward the arguments in view of 5.

Covid-19 pandemic. From time to time, the matter was adjourned. While so, the court insisted the parties to submit arguments. The plaintiff filed written arguments on 18.05.2020. While things stood thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in CMA, the developer filed applications

before the trial court on 07.09.2020 to reopen the suit and to implead them

as party defendant and also filed several documents in support of the pleas.

Initially an e-mail was sent, thereafter section people informed that they could not download the documents, once again mail was sent but the section expressed inability to download documents and on 08.09.2020 the hard copies were handed over for check and put up. The implead petition has been returned by the learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy

District with a query as to how the petition is maintainable. Further, the petitioner was not able to make representation or proceed with the matter

Page No. 4 of 12 and the trial court is bent upon to dispose of the suit without providing opportunity and without following the due procedure. The petitioner pleaded that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC can be filed at any stage of the case and therefore pleaded that the objection raised for returning the application is incorrect. Further, it is pleaded that the interest of the developer is also involved therein as owner of part of land and therefore the developer is a necessary party. It is pleaded that the manner in which the trial court curtailed the rights of the defendants to submit arguments in the suit and lead evidence in haste during Covid-19 pandemic gives rise to suspicion and bias. In the circumstances, it is pleaded that it is just and necessary to transfer the suit from the file of III Additional District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District to any other court to safeguard the interest of the developers and also pressure on the petitioner is increasing in that regard.

Hence, the transfer petition is filed.

The respondent No.1 opposed the transfer OP by filing written 6.

counter. The respondent No.1 pleaded that the petitioner herein is arrayed as defendant No.16 in the suit and has been set exparte long back on 21.11.2011. The petitioner’s attempts to set the exparte order set aside was not allowed by the Hon’ble High Court vide orders in CRP.Nos.455, 490 of 2018 dt.26.03.2019. The respondent No.1 filed CRP.Nos.455, 490 of 2018

before the Hon’ble High Court aggrieved by the order of the III Additional

District Judge, Ranga Reddy District dt.12.04.2017, whereby the exparte

orders against the petitioner herein have been set aside. The Hon’ble High

Court has held that the petitioner is not entitled to indulgence because of the inordinate delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte order. With said finding, the CRPs have been allowed setting aside the order of the trial

Page No. 5 of 12 court dt.12.04.2017. As a consequence of the Hon’ble High Court order in the CRP, the written statement, the evidence affidavit and the documents filed by the petitioner herein have been eschewed.

In pursuance of the notification of the Hon’ble High Court in 7.

ROC.No.394/SO/2020 dt.13.06.2020, the III Additional District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District has taken up the suit for hearing as the same was ripe for disposal by the date of lockdown. The trial court received the written arguments from the parties by 04.09.2020 and posted the suit on 10.09.2020 for judgment. Only after the suit was posted for judgment,

M/s.Maheshwari Developers (proposed implead petitioner) filed applications for impleadment in the suit and for opening the suit. Said applications were returned with certain objections. The proposed implead petitioner got the present transfer petition filed through the petitioner herein only to sub- serve his interest. In the circumstances, the respondent No.1 pleaded that the present transfer petition is not sustainable either in law or in facts.

The respondent No.1 pleaded that the transfer petition is filed alleging 8.

bias on the part of the Presiding Officer for returning the applications filed by the proposed petitioner for its impleadment and that such a ground is not valid ground for transfer of the suit. It is pleaded that the correctness of the orders of the Presiding Officer on the applications filed by M/s.

Maheshwari Developers cannot be agitated as a ground for transfer. It is pleaded that the Presiding Officer in observance of the order issued by the

Hon’ble High Court has taken up the suit for disposal as the same was

ripen for disposal. It is pleaded that the present petition is filed with malafide intention of Forum Shopping in order to undo the orders of the

Page No. 6 of 12

Hon’ble High Court passed in CRP.Nos.455, 490 of 2018 dt.26.03.2019 in

an indirect way.

According to the respondent No.1, the present petition is filed at the 9.

instance of the implead petitioner M/s.Maheshwari Developers through the petitioner in order to avoid the court before which the suit is pending. It is pleaded that after filing of the written arguments by respondent No.1 on 04.09.2020, the suit is posted to 10.09.2020 for judgment. The implead petitioner who is closely watching the proceedings filed the applications for impleadment and reopening the matter on 07.09.2020 when the matter was posted for judgment on 10.09.2020. The respondent No.1 emphasized that the knowledge of pendency of suit in OS.No.223/2011 is evident from the plea of the implead petitioners in suit in OS.No.569/2018. The suit in

OS.No.569/2018 is filed by the petitioner and the proposed implead

petitioner against the respondent No.1 and others. When the implead applications have been returned, the proposed implead petitioner has filed the present transfer petition through the petitioner herein who has been set exparte long time back. Since the petitioner herein is set exparte, the respondent No.1 pleaded that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the transfer petition. The respondent No.1 pleaded that the petitioner cannot seek transfer in order to protect the interest of the developer who is not a party to the suit. It is pleaded that the petition suffers from gross latches. The pleadings at paragraph No.6 of the counter with respect to facts of the suit in OS.No.223/2011 are not necessary. The pleadings of paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 of the counter are about the respondent No.1 dodging trial and said pleadings are also not necessary.

Page No. 7 of 12

10.The respondent No.1 pleaded that the order of returning applications of proposed implead petitioner being not in accordance with law is denied.

In any case, said order cannot be a ground for transfer. The claim about inability of the petitioner to make representation is branded as mischievous by the respondent No.1 since the petitioner has not mentioned the fact that he has been set exparte in the year 2011. The trial court proceedings being in violation of law is denied. The trial court denying an opportunity to the defendants to submit written arguments is denied. Likewise, not granting time to lead evidence is denied. Further, imputing bias and suspicion against the Presiding Officer on the basis of the instruction in

ROC.No.394/SO/2020 dt.13.06.2020 is denied. The respondent No.1 pleaded that the entire averments of the transfer OP are false and baseless.

Lastly, it is emphasized that the pleadings of the petition that transfer petition is filed on account of pressure brought by the developer speaks volumes about the third party’s hand behind filing of the transfer OP. In the circumstances, it is pleaded that the petition is meritless, tainted with malafides and is liable to be dismissed.

11.The petitioner filed memo about death of respondent No.17 and there being need to take steps against respondent No.17, but the respondent No.1 herein filed counter memo representing that the respondent No.17 died long back prior to filing of the present OP and pleaded that the OP filed against a dead person is not maintainable. In view of the fact that the present OP is filed against dead person, the presence of respondent No.17 in the present transfer OP is not necessary, hence no order has been passed for steps against the deceased respondent No.17.

Page No. 8 of 12

12.Perused the plaint in OS.No.223/2011 and the documents filed by the respondent No.1 consisting of order of the Hon’ble High Court dt.26.03.2019 in CRP.Nos.455, 490 of 2018, plaint in OS.No.569/2018, petition filed by the developer under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC, order of the

Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No.1214 and 14198 of 2001 and

WPMP.Nos.17087 and 17088 of 2002 and the e-court proceeding of the suit in OS.No.223/2011 from 04.01.2012 up to 16.10.2020.

13.Heard the arguments of the counsel for petitioners and counsel for respondent No.1 on Whatsapp video call.

14.The counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 9 and 16 have been served with notice, made appearance through a counsel Sri M.Venkateshwar Rao, advocate and not filed counter and did not argue the matter. The suit which is sought to be transferred has been posted for judgment and was stayed on account of stay granted by this court in IA.No.681/2020, since contest in the transfer OP is between the petitioner and the respondent No.1, the transfer petition is posted for orders upon hearing arguments of counsel for petitioner and counsel for respondent No.1.

15.Now the point for consideration is “whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for”?

POINT : 16.

The case of the transfer petitioner is that the Presiding Officer is insisting on disposal of the suit in OS.No.223/2011 by ignoring the procedure established in violation of due process by denying opportunity to the defendants to put forth their case. While so, the case of respondent No.1 (plaintiff in OS.No.223/2011) is that the transfer petitioner herein who is the defendant No.16 in OS.No.223/2011 has been set exparte long ago in

Page No. 9 of 12 the year 2011 and his attempts to get the exparte orders set aside have ended in failure in view of the order of the Hon’ble High Court dt.26.03.2019 in CRP.Nos.455, 490 of 2018. The petitioner herein who is set exparte and has no means to participate in the trial in OS.No.223/2011 has filed the transfer petition when the impleadment petition filed by the developer has been returned i.e., the transfer petitioner herein is in fact representing the developer and said fact is amply proven by the pleadings of the transfer petitioner at paragraph No.12 of the transfer OP which are as follows:

“In fact, the petitioner is approaching this Hon’ble Court with the present petition as the developer not having been made a party to the suit and his applications are not being considered in a high handed manner, the petitioner has moral duty and responsibility to safeguard the interest of the developer and also the pressure on the petitioner is increasing from the developer in that regard.”

A perusal of the plaint in OS.No.223/2011 shows that the transfer 17.

petitioner herein is arrayed as defendant No.16. Further, the order of the

Hon’ble High Court dt.26.03.2019 shows that the transfer petitioner herein

has been set exparte on 21.06.2011, moved a petition to set aside the exparte order after a lapse of more than 5 ½ years. When said petition was allowed, the respondent No.1 herein challenged the same and the Hon’ble

High Court has been pleased to allow the appeals setting aside the order of the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District holding that the transfer petitioner herein did not show exceptional circumstances beyond the control for not making appearance before the court to file the written statement. As such, the exparte order dt.21.06.2011 is restored and the

Page No. 10 of 12 transfer petitioner herein cannot participate in the proceedings in

OS.No.223/2011.

It is pertinent to note that the transfer petitioner herein who is set 18.

exparte long back in the year 2011 and when said exparte order is confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court, the transfer petitioner would not have any locus standi to participate in the suit proceedings and likewise would not have locus standi to file the present transfer petition on behalf of another third party (M/s.Maheshwari Developers) who is making attempts to get itself impleaded.

Another important point to be noted is that the copy of the plaint in 19.

OS.No.569/2018 which is filed by the respondent No.1 herein shows that

the transfer petitioner along with implead petitioner M/s.Maheshwari

Developers has filed said suit on 14.05.2018 seeking decree of permanent injunction against the respondent No.1 and others. The pleadings of the suit in OS.No.569/2018 at paragraph No.18 on page No.6 of plaint reveal that the third party developer had knowledge about the suit in

OS.No.223/2011 on 14.05.2018. There is a clear pleading to the effect that

filing of the suit in OS.No.223/2011 seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession is sufficient to prove the possession of the transfer petitioner and the third party developer over the subject matter property. Thus, the contents of the pleadings in OS.No.569/2018 prove that the third party had knowledge about the suit in OS.No.223/2011 as on 14.05.2018. Inspite of having knowledge about the pendency of suit in OS.No.223/2011 at latest from 14.05.2018, the developer did not file the petition to implead itself till 07.09.2020 i.e., three days prior to pronouncement of judgment in the suit.

Page No. 11 of 12

The pleadings of the suit in OS.No.569/2018 clearly show that the 20.

transfer petitioner and the third party developer are sailing together, have knowledge of the suit in OS.No.223/2011 and have waited till the matter was posted for judgment on 10.09.2020 and then came up with the application for impleading the third party developer. The contents of the pleadings in OS.No.223/2011, the order of the Hon’ble High Court in

CRP.Nos.455, 490 of 2018 and the returned application show that when the transfer petitioner herein could not participate in the proceedings, it has sought to influence the same through the third party developer by getting the developer impleaded by filing an impleadment petition under Order 1

Rule 10 of CPC three days prior to pronouncement of the judgment. The third party petitioner herein is claiming rights through the transfer petitioner. Whatever may the result of the suit in OS.No.223/2011, would be binding on the third party developer as well. The title claim by the third party developer is subject to the result in OS.No.223/2011. In the circumstances, the third party developer cannot claim better title than the transfer petitioner or other parties who are parties in OS.No.569/2018.

When the owner himself is not allowed to participate in the suit proceedings by the Hon’ble High Court, the third party developer herein who is claiming rights through the transfer petitioner herein is bound by the same orders.

Lastly, in case, there is any objection or grievance against the order of 21.

the Hon’ble High Court in CRP.Nos.455, 490 of 2018, the transfer petitioner herein and the third party developer should have challenged said orders

before a higher authority but have failed to do so. Instead the third party

developer has made unsuccessful attempt to get itself impleaded in the suit when the suit was posted for judgment and thereafter influenced the

Page No. 12 of 12 transfer petitioner to file the present transfer petition only to circumvent the order of the Hon’ble High Court in CRP.Nos.455, 490 of 2018. Any objection with regard to the query raised by the learned III Additional District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District on the implead petition and reopen petition has to be challenged before property forum, instead filing the present transfer OP will not serve any purpose, except delaying the pronouncement of judgment. In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the transfer OP is devoid of merits and therefore liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. 22.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the Open Court on this the 31 st day of October, 2020.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Copy to:

The III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar.

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MACT-cum-PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Present: Smt.RENUKA YARA,

Principal District Judge.

Tuesday, the 20th day of October, 2020

M.V.OP. No. 161 of 2017

BETWEEN:

1.Noorjahan, W/o. Late Mohd.Shafi, Aged 38 years, Occ: Household,

2.Khalid, S/o. Late Mohd.Shafi, Aged 20 years, Occ: Labour,

3.Arifa Begum, D/o. Late Mohd.Shafi, Aged 19 years, Occ: Nil,

All are R/o.H.No.4-14-47, Hasan Nagar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Petitioners AND

1.T.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Vice-Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2.Nayeemuddin, S/o. Not known to the petitioner, Aged : Major, Occ: Driver of Crime vehicle, C/o. Driver, Rajendranagar Bus Depot, At Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. … Respondents

This Petition is coming before me for a final hearing on 18.09.2020 in the presence of Sri M.Raj Kumar, counsel for the petitioners, Sri T.Dayakar Reddy, counsel for respondent No.1; respondent No.2 set exparte and upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

A W A R D

This is a petition filed by the petitioners under section 166 of Motor 1.

Vehicle Act against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of one Mohd.Shafi in a road traffic accident.

The petitioner No.1 is the wife, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the son 2.

and daughter of the deceased. The respondent No.1 is the owner and

MVOP 161 of 2017 Page 2 of 7 respondent No.2 is the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 2293.

The case of the petitioners is that on 17.01.2017, the deceased left the 3.

house at about 10.00 am to do labour work. When the deceased was crossing road at 3.00 pm near pillar No. 312 at Aramghar, one RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 2293 coming from Attapur to Aramghar side driven in rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed the deceased. As a consequence, the deceased suffered head injury and other bleeding injuries all over the body. The deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and he died while undergoing treatment on 18.01.2017. The petitioners pleaded that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 2293.

The petitioners pleaded that the deceased was aged 42 years, hale and 4.

healthy and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as a labourer. Said money was contributed for maintenance of the family. The deceased was the only breadwinner, as such the petitioners have lost their source of income on account of sudden death of the deceased. The petitioners have suffered great mental shock and are also facing financial crisis.

The police, Rajendranagar registered a case in Cr.No.124/2017 under 5.

section 304-A of IPC against the driver of RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 2293 and have taken up investigation.

The petitioners pleaded that they are claiming a compensation of 6.

Rs.10,00,000/- towards special and general damages on account of death of the deceased. Hence, the petition.

The respondent No.2 remained exparte. 7.

The respondent No.1 filed written counter opposing the claim petition 8.

denying the age, avocation and income of the deceased as on the date of accident. Further, the respondent No.1 denied the manner of occurrence of

MVOP 161 of 2017 Page 3 of 7 accident with respect to time, place and, rash and negligent driving by the driver of RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 2293.

According to respondent No.1, as per records of the corporation, the bus 9.

bearing No. AP 11 Z 2293 was not involved in the accident on 17.01.2017 at 3.00 pm at pillar No.312 of Aramghar. As such, denied liability to pay compensation. The respondent No.1 pleaded that the petitioners have filed the case by suppressing the real facts only for wrongful gain. Alternatively, it is pleaded that even if any accident occurred by bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 2293, the same is not due to the fault of the RTC bus driver. Lastly, it is pleaded that the compensation claimed for sum of Rs.10,00,000/- is highly excessive and that the petitioners are not entitled to payment of said compensation from the respondent No.1 corporation. Hence, prayed that the petition be dismissed.

On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues have been settled 10.

for trial.

1) Whether the accident occurred on 17.01.2017 at about 3.00 pm near

Aramghar, Pillar No.312, due to rash, negligent and high speed driving of RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 2293, by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, what quantum and from whom?

3) To what relief?

The petitioners examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. The 11.

respondents did not examine any witness and also did not mark any documents.

ISSUE No.1: 12.

The petitioner No.1 (wife of the deceased) as PW.1 filed evidence affidavit which is verbatically similar to the averments of the claim petition. The sum and substance of the oral evidence of PW.1 is that her husband is a labourer, that on 17.01.2017 he left to do labour work and at about 3.00 pm near pillar

MVOP 161 of 2017 Page 4 of 7

No.312 at Aramghar when the deceased was crossing the road, the offending

RTC bus came in rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed the deceased. As a result, PW.1’s husband suffered head injury and died in

Osmania General Hospital while undergoing treatment on 18.01.2017. Further, it is the evidence of PW.1 that her husband was aged about 42 years, was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as a labourer. As such,

PW.1 sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. In support of the oral evidence,

PW.1 relied upon Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3 inquest report and Ex.A4 certified copy of post mortem examination report.

In cross examination, PW.1 deposed that she did not witness the 13.

accident. Therefore, her evidence with respect to manner of occurrence of accident cannot be taken into consideration.

When the exhibits marked on behalf of the petitioners are examined, it is 14.

seen that as per Ex.A1 FIR with complaint on 17.01.2017 when the deceased was crossing the road near pillar No.312, the RTC bus coming from Attapur to

Aramghar dashed the deceased from backside. As such, the deceased suffered head injury. As per charge sheet marked under Ex.A2, the investigation of the police revealed that on 17.01.2017, the husband of PW.1 left the house at 10.00 am to do labour work and at about 1500 hours when he was crossing road at pillar No.312, the RTC bus driven from Attapur to Aramghar side by the respondent No.2 in rash and negligent manner in high speed dashed the deceased. As such, the husband of petitioner No.1 suffered bleeding injuries to the head and nose, was admitted in Osmania General Hospital for treatment and died while undergoing treatment. Hence, charge sheet is filed against the driver of RTC bus under section 304-A of IPC. As per Ex.A3 inquest report the accident occurred when the deceased was crossing the road at pillar No.312 near Aramghar when the RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 2293 driven from

MVOP 161 of 2017 Page 5 of 7

Attapur to Aramghar side in rash and negligent manner in high speed dashed the deceased. As per post mortem examination report marked under Ex.A4, the deceased died due to head injury.

A examination of the oral and documentary evidence on record shows 15.

that the accident occurred when the deceased was crossing the road at pillar

No.312 at Aramghar when the offending RTC bus driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No.2 has dashed the deceased. PW.1 is not an eye witness to the accident and no eye witness is examined. In the circumstances, this Tribunal has to rely only upon the documentary evidence marked under

Exs.A1 to A4. The evidence in Exs.A1 to A3 is in conformity with the oral evidence of PW.1. While so, the respondent No.1 who opposed the claim petition did not chose to lead oral or documentary evidence to rebut the petitioners’ evidence. In the circumstances, the evidence of the petitioners remains unchallenged. As such, on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the petitioners, this issue is answered holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2 who was driving the RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 2293 at the time of accident.

ISSUE No.2 : According to PW.1, the deceased was aged about 42 years, 16.

was hale and healthy and had income of Rs.10,000/- per month as a labourer.

According to Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet, the deceased was aged 42 years. While so, according to Exs.A3 certified copy of FIR and Ex.A4 certified copy of PME report the deceased was aged about 46 years. On the basis of contents of Exs.A3 and A4, the age of the deceased is taken as 46 years and the multiplier would be ‘13’. The deceased was a labourer and there can be no proof of income. The notional income of a labourer would be Rs.6,000/- per month. The petitioner No.2 is aged 20 years and working as a labourer, therefore the petitioner No.2 cannot be considered to be a dependant on the deceased and would not be entitled to apportionment of compensation. There

MVOP 161 of 2017 Page 6 of 7 are two dependants on the deceased and therefore 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, the loss of source of income is calculated at 2/3 X 6000 X 13 X 12 = Rs.6,24,000/-. In addition, the petitioners would be entitled to payment of Rs.70,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium etc,. As such, the petitioners would be entitled to payment of total compensation of Rs.6,94,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

ISSUE No .3: 17.

In the result, the petition is partly allowed awarding the compensation of

Rs.6,94,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand only) together with proportionate costs and future interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of filing of the OP till the date of realization payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are granted one month time from the date of this order to deposit the compensation amount. The petitioner No.1 is apportioned an amount of Rs.5,94,000/- with interest and the petitioner No.3 is apportioned an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest. No amount is apportioned to petitioner No.2. Upon such deposit, the petitioner

No.1 is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the remaining amount with interest shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of two years.

The petitioner No.3 is entitled to withdraw the entire amount at once with interest. The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Issue decree subject to payment of requisite court fee.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the Open Court on this the 20th day of October, 2020.

CHAIRMAN, MACT-cum-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MVOP 161 of 2017 Page 7 of 7

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: PW.1 : NorjahanNIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS: Ex.A1Certified copy of FIR Ex.A2Certified copy of charge sheet

Ex.A3Certified copy of inquest report

Ex.A4Certified copy of PME report

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: NIL

CHAIRMAN, MACT-cum-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Page 1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT L.B.NAGAR

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. RENUKA YARA,

Principal District Judge.

Thursday, the 26th day of November, 2020

G.O.P.No.444 of 2019

Between :

R.Shyam Kumar, S/o. R.Krishan, Aged 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 8-8-495/1, Road No.1, Green Park Colony, Karmanghat, Ranga Reddy District. … Petitioner AND

1.To Whomsoever it may concern

2. R.Mohan Kumar @ R.Manish Kumar, S/o. R.Shyam Kumar, Aged 18 years, Occ : Student, (All are R/o.H.No.8-8-495/1, Road No.1, Green Park Colony, Karmanghat, Hyderabad.)

3.M.Yadaiah, S/o. M.Ramaiah, Aged 49 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. H.No.11-105/2, Venkateshwaranagar Colony, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.

4.B.Mahender, S/o. B.Venkataiah, Aged 34 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. H.No.5-3-302/12, Goshamahal Police Lane, Hyderabad. … Respondent

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 18.11.2020 in the presence of Sri A.Sekhar Reddy, counsel for the petitioner; respondents set exparte and upon hearing and perusing the material on record and the matter, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

ORDER

This is a petition filed under section 10 of Guardians and Wards Act 1.

and section 7 of Hindu Minority and Guardians Act r/w.section 29 of

Guardians and Wards Act for appointment of the petitioner as guardian to the person and property of the minor R.Kiran Kumar and for permission to dispose of the minor’s property.

The petitioner herein is the father of the respondent No.1 aged 18 2.

years and another minor son by name R.Kiran Kumar aged 16 years. The respondent No.1 and minor R.Kiran Kumar are the absolute owners and possessors of plot admeasuring 106 sq.yards or 88.62 sq.mtrs in Ward

No.10, Block No.1, situated at Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred as ‘petition schedule property’).

The petitioner herein gifted the petition schedule property to his sons through a registered gift settlement deed document No.3865/2007 dt.25.07.2007. The petitioner purchased the petition schedule property from one B.Shankar Yadav under registered sale deed document

No.7787/2006 dt.28.11.2006. Among the petitioner’s sons, the respondent

No.1 attained majority. The minor is represented by the petitioner who is father cum natural guardian. The petitioner sought appointment as guardian for his minor son for the undivided share of 53 sq.yards out of 106 sq.yards and sought permission to sell the same on behalf of his minor son.

The petitioner’s wife R.Padmavathi died on 03.07.2006 prior to 3.

purchase of petition schedule property. After the death of petitioner’s wife, since the children were minors, the elders in the community decided and suggested the petitioner to execute gift settlement deed for the plot in favour of the children. Also, said elders appointed one M.Yadaiah and G.Mahender as unofficial private guardians of the children for the schedule property.

Said unofficial guardians without knowledge of the petitioner have disposed of land to an extent of 15 sq.yards illegally. In the circumstances, the petition schedule property is in danger and hence the petitioner sought removal of said unofficial guardians and his appointment as guardian to the

Page 3 of 6 minor. Further, the petitioner is unable to provide for higher education of his children. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking permission to sell the plot in order to support education of his minor son by utilizing the sale consideration. The petitioner sought to sell the petition schedule property in

July, 2019 but the prospective purchasers insisted that the petitioner be declared as guardian and also seek permission for selling the minor’s share in petition schedule property. Hence, the petition.

Notice was issued to general public in Surya Telugu daily newspaper 4.

calling for objections. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.1, as such respondent No.1 is set exparte.

The respondent Nos.2 to 4 served with notice and were set exparte. 5.

The petitioner got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 6.

to A7 in support of his oral evidence.

Heard. 7.

Now the point for consideration is: 8.

Whether there are just and reasonable grounds to grant relief as prayed for?

POINT:The petitioner as PW.1 filed evidence affidavit which is 9.

verbitically similar to the petition averments. In support of the oral averments, PW.1 relied upon Ex.A1 Birth Certificate dt.30.08.2008, Ex.A2

Aadhar cards dt.21.06.2018, Ex.A3 Certified copy of sale deed dt.18.11.2006, Ex.A4 Certified copy of gift settlement deed dt.25.07.2007,

Ex.A5 Encumbrance certificate dt.22.08.2019, Ex.A6 Valuation certificate dt.22.08.2019 and Ex.A7 Market value certificate dt.02.12.2015.

As per Ex.A1, the date of birth of the minor R.Kiran Kumar is 10.

05.10.2004 i.e., the minor is aged about 16 years as on the date of filing of the petition. Ex.A2 consists of copies of Aadhar cards of the petitioner, his minor son R.Kiran Kumar and respondent No.1. Ex.A2 proves the identity of the petitioner, minor R.Kiran Kumar and respondent No.1. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of sale deed dt.18.11.2006 showing purchase of petition schedule property by the petitioner herein from one B.Shankar Yadav.

Ex.A4 is the certified copy of gift settlement deed executed by the petitioner in favour of his two minor sons who were aged three and five years respectively. Thus far, the property remained in the name of the petitioner’s children.

Except the oral evidence of PW.1, there is no evidence on record to 11.

prove that part of land is sold by some private guardians appointed by the community elders. In this regard, it is to be noted that appointment of private guardians by the community elders would have no legal sanctity.

The sale of 15 sq.yards of petition schedule property by the private guardians without permission of the court also would not have any legal sanctity. The petitioner being father and natural guardian has every right to take initiative to protect the interest of his sons.

The case of the petitioner is two fold, one is that the unofficial 12.

guardians appointed by the community elders have sold 15 sq.yards of the petition schedule property without his knowledge and therefore the schedule property is in danger. As already stated, the private guardians do not have any right to dispose of the minors’ property without court permission. Hence, such a sale would be a nullity. The second ground stated for filing the present petition is that the petitioner is unable to support the education of his children. Therefore, the petitioner intends to dispose of the plot to provide further education to his children with said sale proceeds. On both counts, the petitioner has reasonable grounds to seek his appointment as legal guardian and also seek permission to sell the petition schedule property on behalf of the minor R.Kiran Kumar to protect his

Page 5 of 6 interest and to support his education. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for.

In the result, the petition is allowed appointing petitioner as legal 13.

guardian to the person and property of minor R.Kiran Kumar, permitting the petitioner to sell half share of the minor in the schedule property on behalf of the minor in favour of third party purchasers by executing registered sale deed. The petitioner is directed to deposit half amount of the sale proceeds of the schedule property in the name of the minor in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank till attainment of his majority. The petitioner is entitled to withdraw the accrued interest on the fixed deposit from time to time to meet the educational and maintenance expenses of the minor.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 26 th day of November, 2020.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNSSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: PW.1 :R.Shyam Kumar NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS FOR

RESPONDENTS

Ex.A1Birth Certificate dt.30.08.2008 NIL Ex.A2Aadhar cards dt.21.06.2018

Ex.A3Certified copy of sale deed dt.18.11.2006

Ex.A4Certified copy of gift settlement deed dt.25.07.2007 Ex.A5Encumbrance certificate dt.22.08.2019

Ex.A6Valuation certificate dt.22.08.2019

Ex.A7Market value certificate dt.02.12.2015

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT L.B.NAGAR,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: SMT.RENUKA YARA,

Principal District Judge

Friday, the 27th day of November, 2020

Tr.OP. No. 395 of 2019

Between: Syed Ahmed … Petitioner/Plaintiff AND

Mohd.Basheer Ahmed and others … Respondents/Defendants

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT IBRAHIMPATNAM IN

OS.No.1401 OF 2010

Between:

Syed Ahmed and others … Plaintiffs AND

Mohd.Basheer Ahmed … Defendant

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 17.11.2020 in the presence of Sri V.Siva Prasad, Counsel for the petitioner; Sri G.Satyaveer Reddy, counsel for respondent No.1 and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till date, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by transfer petitioner under section 24 of CPC 1.

seeking transfer of OS.No.1401/2010 pending on the file of Senior Civil

Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Ibrahimpatnam to any other court of

competent jurisdiction.

The specific case of the transfer petitioner is that the Senior Civil 2.

Judge, at Ibrahimpatnam is recording the evidence erroneously deviating

from the defense taken by the respondent/defendant taken in the written

Page No. 2 of 4 statement and the chief examination affidavit of DW.1. When certain questions are posed to DW.1, the questions were not allowed, certain important words such as ‘notice’ is missing in the evidence giving a different meaning to the sentence in the deposition. When a question is posed about whether the Mandal Revenue Officer issued gazette seeking transfer to be validated, said question was objected on the ground that the witness is not the according authority and he is not custodian of the record and therefore not concerned with the procedure of the Mandal Revenue

Officer. While so, the case of the transfer petitioner is that the defense of

DW.1 is based on his representation to the Mandal Revenue Officer and therefore the court ought not have disallowed the question. The entire defense is based on the representation made to the Mandal Revenue Officer by DW.1. Since the Senior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam is recording evidence changing the nature of the suit, the petitioner apprehends that the result of the suit would be changed in case cross examination is continued in the same court. Hence, prayed for transfer of suit in

OS.No.1401/2010.

The respondent opposed the petition claiming that the transfer 3.

petition is filed with an intention to drag on the proceedings in the suit, that the suit OS.No.1401/2010 is the oldest matter and the parties are senior citizens and the suit has to be disposed of expeditiously. However, the present petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings. It is pleaded that on one hand the counsel for petitioner canvasses that the plaintiff is a senior citizen of 90 years but does not allow the court to proceed with the case. Hence, prayed that the petition be dismissed.

Heard both sides. 4.

Page No. 3 of 4

Now the point for consideration is “whether the petitioner is entitled 5.

to the relief prayed for”?

POINT: 6.

The ground giving arise for filing of the petition is that the Presiding

Officer is not allowing certain questions to be posed to DW.1 during cross examination and has recorded some answers with lapse of word such as ‘notice’ which is likely to give a different meaning to the evidence.

Therefore, the transfer petitioner apprehends that continuation of recording of cross examination by the same Officer is likely to change the nature of the suit. It is a point to be noted that the Presiding Officer against whom the transfer petitioner has grievance has been transferred and a new

Presiding Officer has taken charge. The grievance, if any of the transfer petitioner no longer holds good. Therefore, seeking transfer on the basis of the events that took place during cross examination has become infructuous as the Presiding Officer has been transferred.

When the same was intimated to the counsel for transfer petitioner 7.

i.e., the present transfer petition has become infructuous on account of transfer of the Presiding Officer, the counsel for transfer petitioner sought direction from this court to the counsel for respondent to cooperate in recording of cross examination and not to raise objections frequently for each and every question posed. In this regard, it is to be noted that this court has administrative power to transfer cases when necessary for facilitating adjudication of cases. However, this court does not have judicial powers to interfere with the processes taking place before the courts of this unit. Any grievance that arises on the judicial side has to be challenged

before the higher authority by way of appeal or CRP. Therefore, this court

Page No. 4 of 4 cannot interfere with the proceedings of the suit in OS.No.1401/2010.

Further, this court does not have power to give direction to the counsel on record in a case which is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge court, at Ibrahimpatnam. Such a direction from this court amounts to judicial interference and therefore cannot be allowed. To sum up, the grievance against the Presiding Officer about recording of evidence with errors or lapses is no longer in existence. While so, the reliefs sought orally such as directing the counsel for respondent to cooperate in recording of evidence which amounts to judicial interference cannot be granted. The request if any has to be presented before the Presiding Officer of Senior Civil Judge court, at Ibrahimpatnam whenever there is an obstruction from the counsel for defendant. In the circumstances, this court cannot grant any of the reliefs prayed for by the transfer petitioner.

In the result, the petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. 8.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in the Open Court on this the 27th day of November, 2020.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Copy to:

The Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam.