Moula @ Syed Moula Vs Raghunathreddy

RAGHUNATHREDDY BASIREDDYGARI S/O B. SUBBAREDDY MAJOR IN AGE RESIDING AT D.NO.51/153-A NGO COLONY, RAYACHOTY YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-516 269.

¶15

M/S. IFFCO-TOKIYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ADITHYA BUILDING, 2^ND FLOOR NEAR S.N.R HOSPITAL CIRCLE KOLAR - 563 101 REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. VIJAYA PHANEENDRA T.B., ADVOCATE FOR

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:32379 MFA No. 5227 of 2016

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 29.05.2024, SERVICE OF NOTICE R1 HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶22

MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.322/13 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT AND 2^ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act, 1988 arises from the Judgement and award dated 27.11.2015 passed in M.V.C.No.322/2013 by the MACT and II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar.

¶27

Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶28

The appellant/claimant has filed the claim petition in MVC No.322/2013, under Section – 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 15.05.2013.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32379 MFA No. 5227 of 2016

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The claim petition of the appellant/claimant was

¶32

dismissed on the ground that identity of the claimant was not proved. As such, now an application is filed inclosing Aadhaar card to prove his identity. It is stated that when the matter was pending before the Tribunal, Aadhaar card was misplaced and could not be traced and as such, it was not filed. As it is a case of injury and it is filed under beneficial legislation, this Court finds to give reasonable opportunity to the litigant. Thus, application is allowed and Aadhaar card is received on file.

¶33

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. The appeal is allowed.

¶36

ii. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to permit both the parties to adduce further evidence, if any and the Tribunal to hear the arguments of both the parties and then dispose of the matter afresh by duly giving opportunity to both the sides within three months from the date of receipt of the records.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32379 MFA No. 5227 of 2016

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

iii. Registry is directed to send back the records to the concerned Tribunal within one week from the date of this order.

¶40

iv. Parties are hereby directed to appear before the Tribunal on 15.09.2025 without awaiting further notice.

¶41

SD/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶42

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Moula @ Syed Moula v. Raghunathreddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moula @ Syed Moula v. Raghunathreddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sundari Vs Mr K Chandraprakash Shetty

Sri Siddesh Gupta K Vs M/S National Insurance

Mr Sundara Poojary Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

The Branch Manager Vs Smt Nani @ Chandrika

The Manager Vs Lokesh Mastappa Naik

Smt. Radha Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.