Allowed

Bavisetti Nagamani v. Guthikonda Rama Prakash

Telangana HC7 Nov 2012MACMA/1474/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an MLA appeal and a revision petition challenging the dismissal of a motor accident compensation claim. The court permitted additional evidence proving the vehicle was insured during the accident, overturning the Tribunal's decision and holding the respondents jointly liable to pay the awarded compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; Ex.A-7 was marked as evidence; respondents directed to pay Rs.1,95,220/- plus 9% interest.

Bavisetti Nagamani Vs Guthikonda Rama Prakash — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

*** THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR**

¶2

+ M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.5331 of 2012

¶3

and

¶4

M.A.C.M.A.No.1474 of 2005

¶5

% 07-11-2012

¶6

# Bavirisetti Nagamani and two others.

¶7

..APPELLANTS

¶8

AND

¶9

$ Guthikonda Rama Prakash and two others.

¶10

..RESPONDENTS.

¶11

! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri N.Nageshwararao

¶12

^ Counsel For Respondents: Sri B.Devanand

< Gist :

> Head Note :

? CITATIONS :

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.5331 of 2012 and M.A.C.M.A.No.1474 of 2005

¶17

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶18

The claimants are the appellants. They assail the award of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru (for short “the Tribunal”), whereunder their claim was dismissed on the ground that the offending vehicle was not covered by policy at the time of accident. Contending that the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident, the claimants preferred the present appeal.

¶19

2. The 1^st respondent was the driver of the offending lorry bearing registration No.AP-16-T-559. The 2^nd respondent was the owner of the offending vehicle. The 3^rd respondent was the insurer thereof. The deceased Bavirisetti Satyanarayana was the cleaner of the offending lorry when the accident occurred. The deceased met with his death in the said accident. His parents and unmarried sister claimed compensation at Rs.2,00,000/-. The Tribunal arrived at a sum of Rs.1,95,220/- together with interest at 9% per annum as just and reasonable compensation. However, considering that Ex.B-1 policy did not cover the period of accident, the claim was dismissed.

¶20

3. Sri N.Nageshwararao, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the civil miscellaneous petition in MACMAMP No.5331 of 2012 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC may be received as the claimants

¶21

proposed to file copy of earlier policy to Ex.B-1 as additional document.

¶22

4. I am satisfied with the grounds on which additional document is sought to be marked. Consequently, MACMAMP No.5331 of 2012 is allowed. Copy of the policy now produced is marked as Ex.A-7.

¶23

5. The accident occurred on 27-06-2002 at about 10.30 a.m. Ex.B-1 policy commenced from 27-06-2002 but from 10.56 a.m. and was in force till the mid night of 19-09-2002. Thus, Ex.B-1 did not cover the time at which the accident occurred.

¶24

6. However, Ex.A-7-copy of policy shows that the policy was in force from 20-09-2001 till 19-09-2002. The accident occurred on 2706-2002. The policy was thus in force by the time of accident. Consequently, the claimants are entitled to the claim as determined by the Tribunal.

¶25

7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is found that the offending vehicle was covered by policy under Ex.A-7 at the time of accident. Consequently, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award of Rs.1,95,,220/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. The apportionment as awarded by the Tribunal is maintained. No costs.

¶26

________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J

¶27

Date : 07-11-2012 Prv L.R.Copy to be marked

¶28

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶29

M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.5331 of 2012

¶30

and

¶31

M.A.C.M.A.No.1474 of 2005

¶32

Dated 07-11-2012

Bavisetti Nagamani v. Guthikonda Rama Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bavisetti Nagamani v. Guthikonda Rama Prakash

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

DM United India Insurance Co. Ltd. N.Bad Vs T.Venugopal and Another

A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Sri Jakka Shanker Reddy , Shanker Reddy

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs K. Mahesh , Raj Kumar

Thotakura Venkaiah Prasanth, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. G. Srinivasa Rao (A-4) Vs The State

Dara Subbalakshmi, Vs The State