Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd v. M.Srikanth and Another

Telangana HC12 Jun 2023MACMA/2857/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the appeal filed by an insurance company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decree was dismissed as withdrawn since the appellant agreed to withdrawal before the Lok Adalat. No order as to costs was passed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn; confirmation of judgment and decree of the Court/Tribunal below; no order as to costs.

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs M.Srikanth and… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I I I : !

¶2

13215l

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶7

M.A.C.M.A.No.2857 OF 2016

¶8

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in O.P.No.1033 of^201O dated 01.08.2013 on the^file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal--cum-Xl Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Reliance^{General lnsuranceCo' Ltd Ltd'} reo. bv its bv its^{Legal Manager'} 's-igri Prr.r, Abids, HYderabad'

¶11

Reliance General lnsurance Co' Ltd Ltd '
I
reo. bv its bv its Legal Manager' ..ApPellant /
's-igri Prr.r, Abids, HYderabad' i' ResPondent No.2
AND
Ir
1 tvl.srikanth s/o. M. AnjaneYulu' titr
noed about 32 Years, Occ: Pvt' ti
ei otov"e, ll.No -3-4-17 4 I 1 lBl 1'
n.X.Nigrt, Hyderguda, Rejendranagar' F. . Respondent /
MuniciPalitY, HYderabad f"- Petitioner.
tl
2 Anil D.Defode s/o. not known, Aged lr{aicr' I'
d".,-O*r"t of the vehicie bearing No' El
rrlt-ieiB agsa, R/o.#179, Ashti raluka' t. . .. ResPondent i
!i
,,, <br>Wardha Dist.' Maharastra' ResPondent No.1
=--^-..+

¶12

l.A. NO:^{2 OF2014(M} CMAM P. NO:^{104d. oF2014)} Petition under^{Sectio n '151CPCPrayingthatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in suPPortof the Petition,the HighCourt maybe Pleased to grant} stay of all further Proceedin^{gs in pursuance of the ordr and decreedated'1.8.2013} passed in O.P.No.1033^{of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-} cum Xl Addl.^{District& Sess ions Judge (FTC), R.R.District at L'B Nagar'}

¶13

Counsel for the^{Appellant: SRI' T' MAHENDER RAO}

¶14

Counsel forthe^{Respondent:SRI C' BUCHI REDDY}

¶15

The Court delivered^{the following: JUDGMENT}

¶16

THE HON()URABLE I)R..IUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶17

M.A.C.lvt.A.No.2857 of 20 l6

¶18

JUDGMENT:

¶19

-l-his appeal is filed by the appellant - Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2013 passed in O.P.No.t033 of 2010 by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District & Sessions Judge(FTC), Ranga Reddy District ar L.B.Nagar.

¶20

As per the award dated 26.06.2022, the learned counsel for the appeilant agreerJ to withdraw thc appeal.

¶21

Lr vieu, of the said agreemenl of withdrawal before the Lok Adalat by the

¶22

insurance company, this appeal is closed. No order as to costs.

¶23

\4iscellaneous applications oending, if any, shail stanci closed.

¶24

To,

¶25

SD/. V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rD

¶26

//TRUE COPY//

¶27

SECTION OFFICER

¶28

'l . The Chairman, [\4otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional District & Sessions Judge^{(Fast Track Court)Ranga Reddy Districtat L.B. Nagar'}

¶29

1. One CC to SRl. T. MAHENDER^{RAO Advocate} [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. C^{BUCHIREDDYAdvocate} IOPUC]

¶30

¶31

(Note: Enclosed herewith Lok Adalath Ward Copy) 4. Two CD Copies CHR

¶32

\----....................-

a\ l '?;

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210612023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2857^{of 2016}

¶38

,4)e 1t{t- ST{ r c'
f <br>? H JIJL 2M z
II
' ()
./,/
'... \i__- /'a " ',r r 6 "i';(' -','

¶39

CLOSING THE^MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

b)U

'at

"...j

BEFORE THI: LOK AI)ALI\T Hl(iH CTf,URT LEGAL 'i;ERV|CES COMM|TT]E.E '[IIC.I-I (CU;IT FOR THE Ii:ATE oF TEL/\NGANA, HYDETIAOAI)}

¶45

.lr,d )r lklc liorr t^,/ ot the !(jgol Servic,)s I.ulhorities Act, l gBZ ((:enk(! Ac l)l

¶46

Dat?: 1'-t:'.6- Z0Zz

¶47

l)releitt: 1.Hon'bki Dt'. Juitice G.lilthiraju Iu,

¶48

Fo.rner J xlec o: :rsrwile H6'b16 tflgh_Court ot

¶49

i:-Sri K. V,)r;ant l. Rao, Advocate, Me,nber

¶50

j.5m t. X..dani [reL-pika, Ad/octe, Men'rbL r

¶51

MA( MA I{o. :t-857 ot 2A16 (Before thr: Hal'ble H,gh Court) AGA.IN5T :

¶52

QP^{N9_.!l[3r1l!Q!0.]}

¶53

(On the frte c,f th: /',l(,ticr V,3hi cte Acr:ident: Tr ibur-rat.cum.Xl Adcll Dist. Judge (FTC), Fr. R. D,istricr) {

¶54

Between:-

¶55

t I I I

¶56

Retiance Gen..rat lnsuranr e C,t. t-tcl.. Rep. by its [.r,aal [l;rrr.rrg:.r, Sagar Ptaza, ,\oids, l-{vo,-'r.lL,ad.

¶57

No.2

¶58

Irrrd [...AOOellant/rtespondent

¶59

'l . M.Srikantlr, :,i'(r. M-A,njaneyullt, I Aged aboirt i.2 year:;, Occ: Pvt. [:rrrpto,,,ee, t H.No.3-4.tlz.lt,,ll.tj, il.l(.Nagar. tjyd:rquda. I Rajendranagrr, Mun,c ipality, -lyd.'rai),rd. t

¶60

[ ...ne:,pon clent/^petitioner. I

¶61

Anit D.Defodr, !,/o.^,,lot known, l.llcd tAaior, Y Occ: Owrrr:r-rlf the vehicte beirrirrg l{c,. MH 3ZB 49qg, Rlo.#179, Ashti T:rtr.k;r, Wardha t)ist., Maharastrali , !.' l:

¶62

...$e;pondent/ttespondent No. 1 'j A,I/,ARD L , i2:

¶63

This is an Al)peal. fi{ed by the appr:lta r t/ tnsur$ce Company.

¶64

The Learrred Counsel for tlte /\pl]('ltan t/tnsurance Company represented that the lnsuranr:,: Cornpany is^{,^/ithJrav,4n!i} tne apfeal fited by thenr.

¶65

The s,rid rc[)r,3r;ent ation ir recr;rdcd ana fitne apg,eat is dismissed as withdrawn, confirrning tfrc. .Jild(;ntent and Decree of the Court/Tribunal betow. The amount if any remaining unpaid to the claimant(s) shalt be paid by the ln:;urance Conrpany wilhin r:rne⁽¹ ) m onth from ihe rlate of receipt of the a'rvarrl, aton!l \ ith ini.erc's". i f, i' It'ttw

¶66

Nfi

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd v. M.Srikanth and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd v. M.Srikanth and Another

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

Bajaj Allianz Gen Ins Co. Ltd., Hyderabad Vs Munjala Mallesham, Warangal Dist and 2 Others

Smt v. Pochamma Vs Pentaiah

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Mrs. S.B. Vedavalli

Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Katravath Kodandapani and 2 Others

Mr. S.v.Murali Vs Margadarsi cHit Fund Limited

Shriram General Insurnce Co. Ltd., and Another Vs Revelli Srimathi and 7 Others