Dismissed

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, v. P.Renamma

Telangana HC1 Jun 2021MACMA/302/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a Motor Accident Claims Miscellaneous Appeal (MACMA) arising from a quantum dispute in a MVA compensation case. During the appeal's pendency, the parties settled the matter before the Lok Adalat, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on harmonious terms.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of in terms of the Lok Adalat Award; the appellant directed to deposit Rs. 8,47,985/- as the final settlement amount.

Shriram General Insurance Company… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶6

MOT o R ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 302 0F^20'19

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the Judgment^{and Decree} made in I/.V.O.P.No.1286 of 2016 dated 23.04.2018^{on the file of the Courtof the} chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-XXV^{Additionalchief Judge,city civil} Court, at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shriram General lnsurance Company^{Limited, representedby its Manager,402} and 403, 3-6-5"17, Siddhartha Arcade,^{Street No.6, Sai Vihar, Himayathnagar,} Hyderabad - 500029.^(Policy No.1003/31/16/286599^{valid from 24.09.20'15 to} 23.09.2016).

¶10

...AppellanUResPondent No'2

¶11

AND

¶12

P. Renamma, w/o. Late Venkataswamy,^{Aged about about 31 years'Occu.} Housewife, Rl/o. Huts at Hemavathi Nagar,^{Erragadda,Hyderabad.}

¶13

P. Kalyani, D/o. Late Venkatswamy, Aged^{about15 yqqr.s,Occu,Student'being} Nlinor,- represented by Mother, Ri/o. Huts at^{Hemavathi Nagar,Erragadda,} Hyderabad.

¶14

P. Narender, S/o. Late Venkatswamy, Aged^{about12 years,BeingMinor,} represented by Mother, Occu. Student,^{RJo. Huts at HemavathiNagar,} Erragadda, Hyderabad.

¶15

P.Ushaiah, S/o. Late Narsimha, aged about 68^{years,Rl/o. Hutsat Hemavathi} Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

¶16

P.Bhagyamma, W/o. Ushaiah, aged about 60^{years,Ri./o.Huts at Hemavathi} Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

¶17

Gaddipogula Ramulu, S/o.Venkataiah, Aged major,^{Occu. Business,Rlo.2-5711} ' Lingal Village and Mandal, lvlahabubnagar District.

¶18

K.Jahangeer, S/o. Ahmad Hussain, Aged about 28^years, Occu.^{Driver, Rl/o'10-} 38, Pentavelly Village, Kollapur Mandal, Mahabubnagar^District.

¶19

Respondents/Respondents

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI N. MOHAN KRISHNA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE^APPEARED

¶22

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T, AMARNATH GOUD

¶24

MACMA No.3O2 OF 20t9

¶25

JUDGMENT:

¶26

During the pendency of the appeal, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, and thr: same was settled belore the Lok Adalat, vide Award dated 20.O2.2021 .

¶27

Accordingly, the MACMA is disposed of, in terms ol the

¶28

award passed by the Lok Adalat. No order as to costs.

¶29

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶30

this appeal shall stand closed.

¶31

Sd/.I.NAGA LAKSHMI ASSISTANT EGIS

//TRUE COPY//

sEcTlo OFFICER

To,

l.TheChairman,MotorAccidentsclaimsTribunal.Cum-XXVAdditionalChief Judge, City Civil^{Court, at Hyderabad'(WithRecords)'} z. OnJcC to^{Sri N. Mohan Krishna, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶36

Two CD CoPies

¶37

(Along with a copy of the^{LokAdalat Award)} \ MMK.p-

HtGH^COURT

DATED:01/06/2021

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.302^{of 20'19}

¶42

ti 1,q
o
oc
26 JUNlfl/ilI
O
*

¶43

DISPOSING OF THE M.A.C.M.A^{IN TERMS OF THE LOK ADALATAWARD}

4\ b ,

.fu*

Under Secfion

Act)l

(Agoinst the Order ln O 1
cum
nts Cloims Tribunol-
AppeltontlR espondent tJ 2
Petitione rsl Respondenls 5S3rLS00oohm6-m02 t5roe2hIm4d7oP0rsGRo?Hd2cpdnm0vhoNo5robYrtoYoohtnstsoh2003 U3n oro0osC93nnoo20ordeseH66vSdo2i8r4me06rpo529oboo9Nnn ovddo64d03
P R n o m m o o Lo i e n koio s
HR voodedHroUobtbsooodUt tH3e rnvo oor:s hoNco CsoH ro UE5rrewloosmfoddeY o
gk G 2 bPesKenodolyoominornt,b oDU o1 5Loyeors,e eon kcoctoSswUodmnvt
Ii)_ iC-r(,,--";'1.l{/G .,,rr4lAfC.,..,,,,_.--* ::. RepoboutPH Nmorender,obYot2myeors,ho fNhsRoeeopOcc:oLR/o.or,bytErromHs UeoUntsodhkodeo 1dnr oHoRsbHmoeoondmvLJsUor1smohbonsodioerd
N o o r Effo o ddo H d obod
I 4. P U s h o o h s o Lo e N o rs m h o os ed o bo U
Erro68 Yeoodrsd oR oH HdUeIs oboI Hde m a o h N os o
P B h o oYo m m o o U s h o o h o o d obo U
60 veo r5 R o H U ts o t H e m o o h N os o
Respondenl s/Respondenti 6. Errood dopdodsoU Ho Rdo mulu,ro b odS o e n k o to o h
s ed Mojor, o c c Bus in ess, R / o.2-57 /
L n oo os
ond Mond ol, Mohobubnogor
D s t n C
7 K .J o h o ns e s o A h m od H U ss o n O d
o bo U 28 Y o rs o C C D e R o 0-3B
P e n to e v os Ko o p U M o ndo
M o h o b U b n o o Districl
[No. of proceedings of the Hio
h Court Legol Services Commillee:
ORDER ROC.No. I 95/H CLSC/2"0
2I , Doled 30-0I -2021 l
:: Presenl ::
Nome of Choirmon

¶49

Hon'ble Sri Juslice p.Noveen Roo, Judge, High Courl for lhe Slole ot Telongono. : (1)

¶50

Nome of Members

¶51

11]lteltu^{GoverdhonReddy,Advocote,} High Cour, for lhe Slole of ielongono

¶52

-l}

¶53

(2) Smt.P,Sujolho, Advocole. High Courl for the Slole of Telongono. AWARD

¶54

The obove Cose between the podies hoving been referred for determinotion to the LOK ADALAT ond the portips hoving compromised the cose / motter, the foilowing Aword is possed in terms of the set ement:

¶55

l. This MACMA orises out of the order doted 23-04-20 18 in op.No.l2 86 0f 2016 on the fire of ihe choirmon, Moror vehicre Accident croims t-ribunor-cum-xxv Additionot Chief Judge, Ciiy Ci Courts ot Hyderobod.

c -.1/
y*

.]'t>

The Tribunol^{hos gronted compensotionofRs' 1 7'32'000/-(RupeesSeventeeri} lokhs thirty^{two thousond only)with proportionotecosts ond interest@ 8% per} onnumfromthedoteofpelitiontillthedoteofdecreeondthereofterotthe rote of 6%^{per onnum till poyment'Aggrieved by the order'the lnsuronce} Compony hos^{preferredthis oppeol' During the pendoncy of oppeol boih} the^porties hove^{compromised the moiler.}

¶62

The Respondents/Peliiioners^{No. I lo 5 olong with lheir counselSri G.Gowri} shonker, Advocole hove^{represenled beforethe virtuolLok Adolot by ottending} in the office of Secre'tory, High^{Courl LegolServicesCommiltee, High Court for} lhe Stole of Telongono.

¶63

The Appellont/Respondent No.2 -^Shrirom qenerol^{lnsuronceCompony Limited,} represented by Sri S.Chondroshekor Redd)i,ⁱ Assislonl Monoger-Legol,^hos |..pr"r.ntEd before lhe virtuol Lok Adolot by ollending in the office of Secretory, High Court Legol Services Commitlee, High Gourf for the Stole of Telongono.

¶64

5 Both the porties stoled thot they resolved lhe dispute omicobly ond entered into c6mpromise. The Respondenls/Pelitioners No.I io 5 hove produced copy of Aodhor Cords in proof of their idenlificotion.

¶65

lE GAL s
6
ot
:r: ::l
,(
,f;
+
11 ,rj
7

The Appellont/Respondenl No.2/lnsuronce Compony is willing 1o poy Rs.8,47,985/- (Rupees Eight lokhs forty seven thousond nine hundred eighty five only) towords full ond finol setflemenl oport from ihe omounl deposited in .fhe lower courl ond rhe Respondenls/petirioners No. r to 5 ore orso ogreed to receive lhe some lowords full ond finol se.lflemenl.

¶70

Accordingly lhe oword is possed for ihe obove soid omount of Rs.g,4z,9g5/(Rupees Eight rokhs forty seven thousond nine hundred eighty five onry) towords f ull ond finol selflement.

¶71

The Appellonl/Respondent No.2/rnsuronce compony hos to deposit the soid omounl of Rs.8,47,985/- (Rupees Eight lokhs forly seven lhousond nine hundred eighty five only) towords full ond finol setflement within o period of two (2) months from the dole of receipt of copy of this oword ofier giving due credil 10 the omounl olreody deposited. In lhe evenl of defoult or deloy in moking such deposit, the omount poyobre shol cony interest ot l2% per onnum from rh€ dote of defoult.

¶72

On deposil of lhe soid omount, ihe Respondenl/petitioner No.l is enti ed for Rs.5,47,985/-, the Respondent/pelitioner No.2 is entilled for Rs.l,OO,000/_ Respondent/Peiitioner No.3 is enlifled for Rs. t ,OO,O0O/, Respondenl/ petilioner No.3 is enlitled for Rs.I ,OO.OOO/. Respondent/petilioner No.4 is enti. ed for Rs.50,000/- ond Respondent/petitioner No.5 is enti ed for Rs. 50,000/_. The mojor petitioners ore permitted to withdrow their respective shores. The shores of the minor petilioners sho, be kept in fixed deposit in ony Norionorized Bonk ti, they ottoins mojority.

¶73

lo.ln terms of tne comproinise onived ot berween rhe pqrries, rhis cose stonds disposed of.

¶74

i I . The porlies ore informed thol the court fee, if ony, poid by ony of them before lower courl sholl be refunded.

¶75

5,^f,1J*

¶76

I T) OT-
P,
;;::, |$:,
P ?"Jxti %
ol"n Mi
P, NsYqdr g<<"?lrl
3. a,"Otfg 'f
4
sutance Co ' Ltd'
RTA tol Shriram Gen
5 6aflg
tor',
hlbs" ffirisedSigna
Cloimonls Appellont / lnsuronce Compony
@*-t"&t/ Counsel for Appellonl /
Counsel for ResPondenls / lnsuronce ComPonY
Cloimonts
5il/.^
P
Mefnber
Choirmon'

Doie: 20.02.2021

]
!

fhmittee)

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, v. P.Renamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, v. P.Renamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avula Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Sri G. Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, And 3 Others

Ramgiri Pochaiah Vs Sri Kallem Sanjeeva Reddy and another

Lavudya Rajkumar Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Jetti Agri Science (Opc) Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana and another

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Yenkola Raju , Prasa Raju and Another