Remanded

Nuchu Narsimha v. Ch. Parameswar Gous

Telangana HC19 Aug 2010CRP/1710/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order requiring notice publication for a Motor Accident Claim suit, allowing the petitioner to serve the first respondent personally by registered post to save expenditure on substituted service.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner permitted to serve first respondent by personal notice via Registered Post AD to avoid substituted service costs in the underlying MVOP.

Nuchu Narsimha Vs Ch. Parameswar Gous — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1710 of 2008

Between:

Nuchu Narsimha.

... PETITIONER

AND

Ch. Parameswar Goud and another.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. B. PARAMESWARA RAO

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED--

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.94 of 2006 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Nalgonda is aggrieved by the order of the tribunal below dated 08.10.2007 directing publication of notice to the first respondent in Deccan Chronicle Daily Newspaper.

¶17

2. The petitioner approached this Court stating that MVOP is filed by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs.70,000/- on account of injuries suffered by him and the first respondent for whom advertisement in Deccan

¶18

Chronicle is ordered would cost Rs.16,000/-. In that view of the matter, the petitioner approached this Court by the present revision petition.

¶19

3. While admitting the revision petition 25.04.2008 this Court granted interim stay. On the last occasion i.e. 17.06.2010 after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I had passed the following order:

¶20

“Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks relief in civil revision petition only against the 1^st respondent. However, the 1^st respondent is said to be not a necessary party to the civil revision petition.

¶21

When this was pointed out, the learned counsel the petitioner seeks permission to amend the ground of revision by deleting the said endorsement.

¶22

Permission granted.

¶23

Petitioner’s counsel is also permitted to take out personal notice to the 1^st respondent both in the civil revision petition as well as in the OP and file proof of service.

¶24

Post after one week.”

¶25

4. Now the learned counsel has filed proof of service viz. acknowledgement of notice having been served on the first respondent on 21.07.2010. However, nobody appears on behalf of the first respondent.

¶26

5. Learned counsel states that since he was able to serve the first respondent by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due in the present revision, he may be allowed to serve him in the OP as well so that the expenses of substituted service can be saved as unnecessary.

¶27

6. I find merit in the said submission. Accordingly, the impugned is set aside and the petitioner is granted one opportunity to serve the first respondent under a personal notice in MVOP.No.94 of 2006.

¶28

The petitioner shall send the notice together with a copy of MVOP to the first respondent by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due and shall indicate in the notice that the said MVOP will be taken up for his appearance on 13.09.2010. The petitioner shall file proof of service together with the copy of the notice before the tribunal below well before 13.09.2010. The tribunal

¶29

below shall take up the matter on the said date and shall proceed further in accordance with law.

¶30

The civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 19, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in three days (B/o) DSK

Nuchu Narsimha v. Ch. Parameswar Gous

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nuchu Narsimha v. Ch. Parameswar Gous

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lanka Krishnavenamma Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

M/s. Sanco Cast Pvt. Ltd. Vs N. Sambasiva Rao

M. Chandramohan Vs G. Swarupa

Kabeer Khan Vs Ayesa Bi

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Salgoori Vijay

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Salgoori Kamalamma , K.Rajeshwari