Allowed

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Bhooma Raju

Telangana HC10 Oct 2011CRP/2097/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition seeking to set aside the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's dismissal of an application to summon the R.T.A. Official. The court directed the tribunal to allow the summons to be served.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the summons application was set aside; the Tribunal is directed to allow the application to summon the R.T.A. Official for evidence in O.P. No.118 of 2009.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRDESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY THE TENTTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2097 OF 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office,r Rajkot, 608 and 609, II FLOOR, white House, Begumpet, Hyderabad. - - - Revision Petitioner/ Petitioner/ Respondent No.2 V/s. Bhooma Raju and another. - - - Respondents/ Respondents/ Petitioner & R-1.

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri T. Mahender Rao

¶9

Counsel for the Respondents : None appeared.

¶10

The Court made the following

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶12

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2097 OF 2011

¶13

O R D E R:

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner-Respondent No.2 against the order dated 01-06-2011 passed in C.F.R. No.1218 of 2011 in O.P. No.118 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge (FTC), at Kamareddy, Nizamabad District, where under and whereby the application filed by the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 under Order-16, Rule 7 (A) R/w. Section 151 CPC seeking to summon Additional Registering Authority M.V.I. (R.T.A. Office), Barmar to give his evidence of driving license of the driver in O.P. No.118 of 2009 and to summon the Additional Registering Authority, R.T.A. Office, Barmar to give evidence of particulars of Fitness Certificate, R.C. and Permit of Crime vehicle to bring the concerned to the record, was dismissed.

¶15

2. Heard Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. Though served with notice, the Respondents did not appear either in person or through their Counsel.

¶16

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that it was contended by him before the learned Tribunal that the driver who drove the vehicle has no valid driving license and as per the endorsement of the concerned R.T.A. the oil tanker which was involved in the accident is not permitted to travel in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the vehicle was also not having valid fitness certificate, as on the date of the accident. On these grounds, he filed an application before the Tribunal below to summon the Official from the Additional Registering Authority, M.V.I. (R.T.A. Office), Barmar. The version of the Insurance Company/Revision Petitioner herein is that the said petition was returned on the ground that the trial was in progress. It appears that the learned Tribunal was proceeding with the trial of the case prior to granting the order of stay, by this Court, in this Revision.

¶17

4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner, I am of the view that to substantiate the version of the Revision Petitioner/Insurance Company summoning of Additional Registering Authority, M.V.I. (R.T.A. Office), Barmar, Rajasthan is essential. It also seems to be required for the effective disposal of the case by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the order

¶18

passed by the learned Tribunal returning the application filed by the Revision Petitioner/Insurance Company to summon the concerned R.T.A. Official is set aside and the learned Tribunal is directed to allow the Application filed by the Revision Petitioner/Insurance Company to summon the R.T.A. Official for the purpose of giving evidence in O.P. No.118 of 2009, pending on its file.

¶19

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.

¶20

__________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶21

Date.10-10-2011. Note. Issue C.C. within a week. B/o.Dsh.

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶23

168

¶24

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2097 OF 2011

¶25

October, 10, 2011

¶26

DSH

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Bhooma Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Bhooma Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunkara Krishna Murthy Ba., Bl., Vs Devineni Uma Maheswara Rao

Parcha Kodanda Rama Rao Vs Mr. Dasyam Vinaya Bhaskar

Khaja Valli, Vs The State of A.P.

Smt. Nawab Sultana Vs Sri Babu Naik Pujari, Bailiff

Madhavarapu Satyanarayana, Vs Shaik Khaja

The Thirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Tirupathi, Vs C.Nagaraju