Dismissed

Dm.,United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Nizam v. R.Balaiah , Devanna and 3 Ors.

Telangana HC19 Sept 2022CRP/3387/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition and Civil Revision Petition, the Telangana High Court dismissed the pleas of an insurance company aggrieved by a compensation award. The Court held there was no merit in the grievance regarding the evidence or policy violation. The revision was dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed without costs, interim stay vacated, and pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Dm.,United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Nizam Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

t³²¹⁶ )

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

cNt L REVISION PETITION NO: 3387 OF 1999

¶7

Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C, against/aggrieved by^{the Orderdated} 04.01.'1999 in O.P.No.161 of 1994 on the^{file of the chairman,MACT-cum-District} Judge, Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

United lndia lnsurance co. Ltd.,Nizamabad, Represented by its Manager at Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

R.Balaiah @ Devanna, S/o Pedda Sayanna, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Agriculture & Cobbler (mochi), Rl/o: Vannel (B), Balkonda (M), Nizamabad District.

¶13

M/s. Rajhari Carriers and finance (P) Ltd,

¶14

Rep.by P.M.Patel, owner of the lorry bearing No.AP-2S/T 1177, Rl/o siricilla Road, Kamareddy, Door No.2-15, Nizamabad Dist.

¶15

The New lndia Assurance Co. Rep. by Branch Manager, Branch Office, Door No.2-1 1-80/1 , lst floor,

¶16

Opp: IOB Weekly lvlarket Road, Kamareddy, Nizamabad.

¶17

L. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Mohan Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Occ: owner ofjeep bearing No. AIL 4948, Perkit village, Balkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

l.A. NO: 2 OF 1999(CMP. NO:^'17714 OF 1999)

¶20

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Decree-Judgment in O.P.No.161/1994 dated 04.01.1999 on the file of the MACT-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, pending disposal of the appeal.

¶21

Counsel for the Petiti( ner: SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI Ch. JANARDHAN REDD/

¶23

Counsel for the Resp,rndent No.4: SRI P. LAKSHMA REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Resp rndent No.2 & 3: NONE APPEARED

¶25

The Court made the f rllowing: ORDER

I i

I I

.tl{tr HON'BLE SI{I,IT]STICE M" T-AXMAN

¶30

crvrr, trIvtsroN PE'TI I ION No: 1387 of 1999

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

i The present Civil Revision Petition has been di:ected against the Award dated 04.01.1999 passed in O.P.No.161 of 1994 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunai (District Judge), I.lizamabad, whereunder compensation of Rs.4,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @12%o per annum from the date of petition to the date of realization and all the respondents &'ere directed to pav^jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal is liled

¶33

The main grievance of the appellant who is the Insurance Company is that the compensation awaried is coirtrary to the evider-rce on record and the vehicle was plying by violating the terms and conditions o1- the policy. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶34

A glance of the impugned Award shows that there is no dispute with regard to occurrence of accident and the Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, lound that the accident was result of rash and negligence of the driver of the vehicle which^rvas insr,rred with the present appellant. Admittedly. there is an Act policy. 'lhc vehicle was passenger vehicle and the policy was covered to the

¶35

i\IL,,J

¶36

1 I

¶37

'.^{lP.Jo :l.l8ioi' l(lg9}

¶38

ir-lnrates ol tlrc passenger vehicle under the Act policy, )'he.efore, I don't

¶39

find any nrelit; in this Civil Revision Petition and thc sarxe is tiable to be dismissed.

¶40

Interim :tay granted on 18.08.1999 shail stand vacated.

¶41

Accordingly, this Civit Revi.sion Petition is disrnissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

As a s equel, pending mis;ellaneous applicar-ions, if any, shall

¶43

stand closed.

¶44

lo,

¶45

Sd/-N.RAJ GOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ", -il

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

SECTION OFFICER

¶48

The chairman, MACT^- cum - District Judge, Nizamabad.^('/rlith records)

¶49

One CC to SR P LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SR KOTA SUBBA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

One CC to SR CH JANARDHAN REDDY Advocate [OPllC]

¶51

Two CD Cop es

¶52

One spare c(,py

SVSSC

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910912022

ORDER

CRP.No.3387 of 1999

'j{A'f E
$
? i lNIl
'll
.!.;! { 'ai

¶60

DISMISSINC, THE CIVIL REVISION PEI'I"TION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶61

ka*,

¶62

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶63

NIONDAY. THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶64

PRESENT

¶65

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶66

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3387 OF 1999

¶67

Between:

¶68

United lndia lnsurance co. Ltd.,Nizamabad, Represented by its Manager at Hyderabad.

¶69

...PETITIONER

¶70

AND

¶71

R.Balaiah @ Devanna, S/o Pedda Sayanna, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Agriculture & Cobbler^(mochi), Rl/o: Vannel (B), Balkonda (M), Nizamabad District.

¶72

M/s. Rajhari Carriers and finance (P) Ltd, Rep.by P.M.Patel, owner of the lorry bearing No.AP-25ff 1177, R/o siricilla Road, Kamareddy, Door No.2-15, Nizamabad Dist.

¶73

The New lndia Assurance Co. Rep. by Branch Manager, Branch Office, Door No.2-1 1-80/1 , lst floor, Opp: IOB Weekly Market Road, Kamareddy, Nizamabad.

¶74

L. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Mohan Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Occ: ownerofjeep bearing No. AIL 4948, Perkit village, Balkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶75

...RESPONDENTS

¶76

Petition under Section 1'1 5 of C.P.C, against the^{judgemenVOrder} and decree made in O.P.No.'161 of 1994 dated 04.01 .1999 on the file of the court of the chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- District Judge, Nizamabad.

¶77

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the^judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kota SubbaRao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and for the respondent No.4 Sri P.Laxma Reddy, Advocate and none appeared for the respondents 2 &3.

¶78

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:-

¶79

That the Civil Revision Petition be and hereby is dismissed,

¶80

That there be no order as to costs

¶81

S,I/. tI. RAJ GOPAL ASiSII}TANT REGISTRAR

¶82

,TRUE COPY//

¶83

,L r:,EC't-toN oFFlcER

¶84

To, 1 . The Chairmar , t\rACT - cum - Diskict Judge, Nizamabad. 2. Two CD Col ies 3. One spare c)py SVSSC

HIGH COURT

DATED:191091','-022

Decree

CRP.No.3387 of¹⁹⁹⁹

DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT C()STS.

¶91

Y,1v

Dm.,United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Nizam v. R.Balaiah , Devanna and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dm.,United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Nizam v. R.Balaiah , Devanna and 3 Ors.

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

Khaja Naseeruddin, Vs Syed Abdul Rab , Arshad Mehta

Addl. Asst. Engineer Vs Peddi Mallakka

Allam Mukundam Vs Vinod Chary (Died) per LRs and 3 others

Iqbal Hussain Vs B.Appa Rao

Mohd Faheemuddin Hyderabad Vs Mahavir Pershad and 5

Chirumamilla Satyanarayana Prasad (died) Vs Naraparaju Venkateswara Rao