Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nalgonda v. Kotagiri Satosh Kumar and 4 Ors, Nalgonda District

Telangana HC19 Sept 2022MACMA/230/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident miscellaneous civil appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company dismissed for non-prosecution. The High Court presumed the appellant lacked interest in pursuing the appeal due to three years of inactivity and no representation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nalgonda Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[3281 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

lv'IONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEN/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TVVO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 230 OF 2013

¶8

Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V.Act against the decree and judgment dt.30-07-2009, passed in O.P No.903 of 2008 on the file of the l,/otor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum- Principal District Judge, Nalgonda.

¶9

Between:

¶10

The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional [t4anager Divisional Office, Near A.P.S R.T,C. Bus Stand on N.H.No. 9, Suryapet Town & li/andal Nalgonda District

¶11

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Kotagiri Satosh Kumar, S/o Radhakrishna Software Engineer R/o H.No. 113, l/lc ll, lX Phase KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad R/o Shivajinagar of Nalgonda Town and District. Presently residing at Shiva.ji Nagar of Nalgonda Town and District.

¶14

RESPONDENT NO,1/PETITIONER

¶15

K. Yashwanth Kumar, S/o Narayana, age : [t4ajor, Occ: Owner of Private Bus Bearing No. AP 07 X 5993 R/o 15-5-884, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad

¶16

S. Ashok Kumar, S/o Thirmala Rao aged about 52 years, Occ: Private Employee,

¶17

S. Dhanalakshmi, Wo Ashok Kumar, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Housewife

¶18

S. Laxmi Prathusha, D/o Ashok Kumar aged about 23 years, Occ: Student (Respondents No.3 to 5 are R/o 2-2-8412, Gandhi Chowk Khammam Town & District)

¶19

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶20

(Respondents No.3 to 5 are impleaded as Petitioners in 1.A.No.320 of 2008, dated 16-02-2008)

¶21

Counsel for the Atr pellant : SRI S.V.R.SUBRAHMANYAM

¶22

Counsel for the Re spondent No.1 : VIVEK JAIN

¶23

Counsel for the Re;pondent No.3 to 5: PALLE NAGESWAII RAo

¶24

Counsel for the Re;pondent No.2 : NONE APPEARED

¶25

The Court made th^,following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶27

AND

¶28

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶29

M.A.C.M.A.No. 230 of 2013

¶30

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'bte Justice G. Sridevi)

¶31

Aithough the matter pertains to 20"1 3, there is no representation on behatf of the appettant. On previous occasrorl atso there was no representation on behatf of the appetlant. Hence, it is presumed that the appettant is not interested in pr osecuting the appeat.

¶32

Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non^- prosecution.

¶33

There shatI be no order as to costs.

¶34

Misceltaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand ctosed.

¶35

Sd/- K.ONESIM DEPUTYJ,EGISTRAR //TRUE coPY// cAP SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum- Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. (With records)

¶38

One CC to SRI S.V.R.SUBRAHMANYAM, Advocate [OPUC]

¶39

One CC to SRI VIVEK JAIN, Advocate [OPUC]

¶40

One CC to SRI PALLE NAGESWAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶41

Two CD Copies BSK

-n L\t.-

HIGH COUR-'

DATED:1910\ 12022

,ti1-,..
4.\l -
ffi},t\tr,l<br>a
\N $tl
It
),- 'li ;:
orny'
r*i|!' .-,,.,./,/ '-"''

¶46

ORDER

¶47

MACMA.No.i 30 of²⁰¹³

¶48

DISMISSING THE WRIT^PETITION FOR NON.PFOSECUTION WITHOUT CC STS

¶49

irw
12"
8) ottP '"'

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nalgonda v. Kotagiri Satosh Kumar and 4 Ors, Nalgonda District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nalgonda v. Kotagiri Satosh Kumar and 4 Ors, Nalgonda District

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

The Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Vs v.Manemma

V. Venkateswara Rao Vs The Special Grade Deputy Collector

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs M. Guru Latha

The Special Deputy Collector Vs Islavath Surya and 19 Others

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tharunoju Eshwaramma and 5 Others

The Special Deputy Collector Vs Banoth Manghya