Dismissed

Merugu Ramesh and Anr. v. Mohd. Hyder and 3 Ors.

Telangana HC3 Nov 2023MACMA/2901/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition due to lack of evidence regarding rash and negligent driving. The High Court found no merit to interfere with the Tribunal's well-reasoned finding.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Merugu Ramesh and Anr. Vs Mohd. Hyder and 3 Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

M .A.C.M.A. NO:2901 F 2007

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in MVOP No.1 1 14 of 2005 dated 08.06.207 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Warangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Merugu Ramesh, S/o. Rajamallu Agriculture R/o. Rajakkapalli Village Regonda Mandal, Warangal District

¶10

ltrlerugu Rajamallu, S/o. Rajaiah Agriculture R/o. Rajakkapalli Village Regonda Mandal, Warangal District

¶11

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

Mohd. Hyder, S/o. Pasha Patil Driver of the Lorry Ryo. Bismillah Masjid Hassan Nagar, Hyderabad

¶14

(R1- dismissed for default vide C.O. dated 1 1 .07.2016)

¶15

Mohd. Latiff, S/o. Mohd. Salim Business R/o. H.No.5-6-12112, Agapua, Hyderabad

¶16

National lnsurance Company Limited, rep., by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, H.No.5-5-67716781101 , First Floor, H. No.5-5-677l678/101, First Ftoor, Sanaflaza, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.

¶17

National lnsurance Company Limited, rep., by its Branch Manager, J.p.N. Road, Warangal

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI J. VENKATESWARA REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. S. BHASKARA RAO

¶21

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

HONOURABLE JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA

¶23

M.A.C.M.A. No.29O1 OF 2OO7

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 08-06-2007 in M.V.C.P No.1 114 of 2OO5 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribultal (V Additional District Judge) War-alga1, the claimants presented the present appeal.

¶26

For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referr(.d to as arrayed before the Tribunal-

¶27

Ihe facts in the claim petition are as under:

¶28

Ihe factual matrix oI the case in brief is that on 09.02.2005 at abcut 0I:0O AM at outskirts of Aler, near Dhaba an accident took place, in the said accident their Icher Val bearing No.AP-36U-8834 was extensively damaged al1d that the accident was caused due rtrsh artd negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP,)-2618 and that they have spent Rs-46,195/- for repairs and the vehicle was kept idle for about three mont-hs in the shed and thus trey sustained loss of Rs.1,20,OOO/-. R-1 is the driver of the said Lrrry at the time o accident, R-2 is the owner, R-3 is the insurer while R-4 is the local branch offrce of R-2 insurance company and appellant ciaimed that they are jointly and severally liable o pay the compensation.

¶29

.fefore the learned tribunal respondent No.3 remained expart:. R-1, R-2 and R-4 made their appearance and filed count€ rs denying the contentions of the petitioners.

¶30

¶31

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶32

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.APO 2618 (l,orry) driven by its driver, as per Section 166 of M.V.Act ?

¶33

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

¶34

1. To what relieP

¶35

During the trial, on behalf of the petitioners PW-1 and PW-2 ale examined and marked Ex.A-l to Ex.A 5. On the otherhand, none were examined on behalf of the respondents but marked Ex-B-1 Policy of [nsurance with consent.

¶36

After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was not caused due to the negligence of the offending vehicle i.e., Lorry ald dismissed the petition.

¶37

learned Counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the tribunal erred in holding the respondent's driver as not responsible for the accident arld not granted any award for the damage of the vehicle ald loss of income for the vehicle being kept idle for three months arrd also Rs.1O,0OO/- which is subject matter of Issue No-2.

¶38

On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the leamed tribuna-l answered Issue No. 1 against the petitioners by holding that the they failed to prove the negligence on the pa-rt of the driver of the lorry/respondent No.1 in occurrence of the accident. On analysis of the findings at issue No.1 of the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal, this Court is of the

¶39

consilered opinion that it is a rvell reasoned one and lvarrarts no interf3rence.

¶40

kamed Counsel for the appetlant further contended that the Tribu nal though came to a conclusion to award RS.1o,OOO/- for the darnages, but fina-lly denied the same. On this aspect, the deniaL in awarding the said amount is a reasonable ground, keepi:rg in view the hnding in the issue No. 1, to the effect that the petiti()ners have not proved the occurrence of the accident in quest.on, by way of establishing the rash and negligent acts on the part cfrespondent No-1 in driving the vehicle. The undisputed fact is that there is accident between the vehicle of the petitioners and respo rdents. Though the petitioners claimed compensation for the repairs ald loss o[ income for a period of three months, taking into account consideration of the fact that the petitioners failed to prove the r egligence of the respondent No.l in occurrence of the accid(,nt, they are disentitled for the said compensation.

¶41

Hence, after perusing the record and after considering the argunrents this Court is of the opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in dismissing the petiti( ner therein and hence the appeal has no merits and it has to be dismissed.

¶42

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs

¶43

Miscellaneous titions, if any, pending shfll stand closed SD/.K.VENKAIAH ASSTSTANT.REGTEf^RAR \ './ //TRUE COPY// -)/

¶44

SECTION OFFICER

¶45

To, 1. The Ch€iirman, Motor Accident Claims^Tribunal -cum-V^{Additional District} Judge, \Varangal.

¶46

One CC to Sri J. Venkateswara^{Reddy,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶47

One CC to Sri N. S. Bhaskara^{Rao, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶48

Two CD Copies SNJ/plp YY

HIGH CCIURT

DATED:(t311'll2O23

JUDGMENT

1trE STAI€ o
vzo
e 19 t'tt t\y-+
*
I OEI n^-i C.Y - o

¶53

MACMA.I{o.2901 of 2007

¶54

M.A.C.M.,A. IS DlSMISSED. WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

6,sl./.d' w 7.^{,,x

¶56

¶57

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶58

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶59

PRESENT

¶60

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶61

M.A.C.M.A. NO:2901 OF 2OO7

¶62

Between:

¶63

lvlerugu Ramesh, S/o. Rajamallu Agriculture Rl/o. Ra.jakkapalli Village Regonda h,,landal, Warangal District

¶64

Merugu Rajamallu, S/o- Rajaiah Agriculture R/o. Rajakkapalli Village Regonda It/andal, Warangal District

¶65

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶66

AND

¶67

Mohd. Hyder, S/o. Pasha Patil Driver of the Lorry Rt/o. Bismillah Masjid Hassan Nagar, Hyderabad

¶68

(R1- dismissed for default vide C.O. dated 11.07.2016)

¶69

Mohd. Latiff, S/o. Mohd. Salim Business Ryo. H.No.5-6-17112, Agapura, Hyderabad

¶70

National lnsurance Company Limited, rep., by its Branch lvlanager, Branch Office, H.No.5-5-677167811O1, First Floor, H.No.5-5-6771678/101, First Floor, Sanaflaza, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.

¶71

National lnsurance Company Limited, rep-, by its Branch Manager, J.P.N. Road, Warangal

¶72

...RESPONDENTSRESPONDENTS

¶73

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in Ir/VOP No.1 1 14 of 2005 dated 08.06.207 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Warangal.

¶74

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 paper rn the

¶75

case and upor hearing the arguments of Sri J. Venkateswara Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri N.S. Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for Respondents.

¶76

This Court doti Order and Decree as follows:

¶77

1 . That thr; Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismisse ,d; and

¶78

That the-e shall be no order as to costs in this appeal

SD/-K.VENKAIAH

ASSISTANtrREGI TRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Cha rman, lr4otor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-V Additional District Judge, M/arangal.

¶85

Two CD 3opies

HIGH CO URT

DATED:C,311112023

DECREE

MACMA.I{o.2901 of 2007

¶91

M.A.C.M. A. IS DISMISSED. WITHOUT COSTS

¶92

,.nfub u W- dr\

Merugu Ramesh and Anr. v. Mohd. Hyder and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Merugu Ramesh and Anr. v. Mohd. Hyder 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

M/s. Sri Sai Granites, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Mohan Steels (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited

M. Niranjan, S/o Sadanandam, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Devender Goud, S/o Narsaiah Goud Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ishak Khan, Vs The State of Telangana

Asifuddin, S/o Moinuddin Vs The State of Telangana