Dismissed

Malothu Saravva v. Nerella Kanakaiah and 3 Ors.

Telangana HC12 Sept 2023MACMA/2487/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by an injured labourer. The appeal challenged the Tribunal's decision dismissing his claim as the respondent's vehicle was not involved. The court found the lower tribunal's evidence-based dismissal justified and confirmed the lower order.

What did the court decide?

The decree of the lower court is confirmed and the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs.

Malothu Saravva Vs Nerella Kanakaiah and 3 Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶5

MOTOR ACC IDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2487 OF 2007

¶6

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 791 of 2005 dated 27-07-2007 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribuna[-Cum- Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ivlalothu Saravva, W/o. Srinu @ Mamji, Occ- Labour, Rl/o. Regonda Village, Husnabad Mandal, Karimnagar District

¶9

... Petitioner/Appellant

¶10

ANO

¶11

'1 Nelella Kanakaiah, S/o. Ramakistaiah, Occ- Driver of Tractor/Trally No.AP'15-W 5984/5983 Rl/o. Bommakal Village Karimnagar Mandal and District

¶12

D. Anjaiah Goud, S/o. Veeraiah, Occ- Owner of Tractor/Trally No.AP-15-W 5984/5983 Fl/o. Bommakal Village Karimnagar Mandal and District

¶13

The National lnsurance Company Limited; Represented by its Branch Manager Regd. Office, 3 Middleton Street, Post Box No.9229, Kolkata700071

¶14

The National lnsurance Company Limited, Represented, by its Divisional Manager Divisional Office, 2-6-103, Opp Municipal Office Karimnagar

¶15

(R2 is dismissed for default vide court order dated 11.O7-2016)

¶16

..:RESPONDENTS

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant: None Appeared

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI A. VEERASWAMY, Advocate

¶19

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶21

M.A.C.M.A.No.2487 of 2OO7

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the order dated 27.O7.2OO7 in O.P.No.791 of 2005, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna-l - cum - Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short "Tribunal") whereby, the claim made by appellant herein for the injuries sustained by him in the accident was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of the claimant.

¶24

Initially the appeal was filed through counsel viz., Venkateswar Varansi, and he died. Therefore, notice was issued to the appellant and the sarne was served, but there is no response. In the said circumstances, the appeal is taken up for disposal on merits basing on the evidence available on record and contentions raised in the grounds of appeal.

¶25

The main challenge in the present appeal is that the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the appeal on the premise that the driver and vehicle was not involved in the accident.

,.,a*! ]{w:

aa<br>

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and perused the material placed on record.

¶30

On perusal of the record, the First Information Report shows that the vehicle bearing No.AP-15-32 lsL/3252, which was driven by the driver viz., Malothu Sarawa, was involved in the accident and the accident occurred due to slippage of the vehicle into the well. When it comes to charge sheet, a new theory was set up that there was a collusion between vehicles bearing Nos.AP- 1532\51 13252 and AP-15-w-5984/5983 and on account of such collusion, the injured sustained injuries.

¶31

The Court scrutinized the erridence of the investigating officer lPWl2 and in his examination, it is stated that ASI has conducted the investigation, however, charge sheet shows that PW2 has conducted investigation, wherein it is stated that he has not recorded any statement. The claim is not filed against the vehicle, which was referred in the FIR. However, a new vehicle has been brought in, which was not involved in the accident. In fact, in the previous report it is shown that accident was occurred not on account of any collusion between two vehicles, however, it was on account of slip of the vehicle into the well

¶32

¶33

In the said back ground of the evidence, the Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence and dismissed the petition. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal do not require any interference and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

In the result, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal of the claimant is dismissed, confirming the order dated 27.O7.2OO7 in O.P.No.791 of 2O05, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Additional District

¶35

Judge, Karimnagar:.

¶36

No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

Sd/. B. CHANDRA^PRAKASH ASS]STANT^REGISTRAR tt-'-

¶39

SECTION OFFICER

¶40

To,

¶41

1 TheChairmanMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal.Cum-AdditionalDistrict Judge, Karimnagar

¶42

One CC to^{SRl. A. VEERASWAMY, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶43

Two CD CoPies

PSR

, I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210912023

JUDGMENT

1 rrE STA7 e
e
o
d re JA\zo2r .b
,+
*
t
D€SPAIC

¶51

MACMA.N o.2487 of²⁰⁰⁷

¶52

DTSMISSTNG THE MACMA^{WITHOUTCOSTS.}

¶53

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶54

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶55

PRESENT

¶56

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶57

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2487 oF 2007

¶58

Between:

¶59

Malothu Sarawa, Wo- Srinu @ Mamji, Occ- Labour, F/o Regonda Village, Husnabad Mandal, Karimnagar District

¶60

...Petitioner/Appellant

¶61

AND

¶62

1 Nerella Kanakaiah, S/o. Ramakistaiah, Occ- Driver of Tractor/Trally No.Ap15-W 5984/5983 Rt/o. Bommakal Village Karimnagar Mandal and Disirict

¶63

2 D- Anjaiah Goud, S/o. Veeraiah, Occ- Owner of Tractorffrally No.AP-'I5-W 5984/5983 Rl/o. Bommakal Village Karimnagar Mandal and Distiict

¶64

J Branch The National lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Manager Regd. Office, 3 Middleton Street, Podt Box No.9229, Kolkata700071

¶65

The National lnsurance Company Limited, Represented, by its Divisional Manager Divisional Office, 2-6-103, Opp Municipal Office Karimnagar

¶66

(R2 is dismissed for default vide court order dated 11-07-2016)

¶67

...RESPONDENTS

¶68

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in N/|.V.O.P.No. 791 of 2005 dated 27-07-2007 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum- Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.

¶69

ORDER : 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 case and upon hearing the arguments of None Appeared for the Appellant and of SRI A. VEERA SWAIVY, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and for the Respondent Nos. 3 &4 not appeared either in person or by Advocate.

¶70

That this court doth Judgment and decree that the decree of the Lower court be and hereby is confirmed passed in o.p.No. 7g1l2o1s dated 27 -07 -2007 on the file of the court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.

¶71

That this court doth further order and decree that there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶72

Sd/. B. CHANDRA PRAKASH ASSISTANT REGTS

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunar-cum- Additional District Judge, Karimnagar

¶77

Two CD Copies

PSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210912023

DECREE

MACMA.No.2487 of 2007

¶84

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS, @ Wa{',iq

Malothu Saravva v. Nerella Kanakaiah and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malothu Saravva v. Nerella Kanakaiah 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

Addula Gopal Reddy Vs Kodiganti Shanker Reddy

Bojja Radha Bai and 4 others Vs P. Prasad and 2 others

Mekala Sanjanna ( died) Vs Kudukuntla Kousalya

M.Balamani and 2 Ors. Vs Mr.a.Mahesh Kumar and Anr.

Mohd. Parvez Vs A.P. State Electricity Board

K.Kashinath Alias Kashinatham Vs K.Bhoomalingam and Others.