Disposed

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. J Mallesh Allias Mallesham

Telangana HC20 Nov 2023MACMA/3144/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as settled based on an Award passed by the Lok Adalat on 30.09.2023. No order as to costs was made, and pending applications were closed. The court below had dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of in terms of the Lok Adalat Award dated 30.09.2023; no order as to costs.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs J Mallesh… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ J

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVENTBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL M ISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 31214 OF 2014

¶7

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.60B of 2012 dated 11lll/2013 on the file of the Court of the chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum Principal Distrrct Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The Authorised Officer, M/S Reliance General lnsurance Co Ltd, Through its Divisional Manager, Abids, Hyd

¶10

...AppellanURespondent No.2

¶11

AND

¶12

1 J lVlallesh Allias Mallesham, S/o Vittalaiah, Occ - Security Guard, R/o Singapuram Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Medak Distriat

¶13

.. RespondenUPetitioner

¶14

2 T Gnaneshwar, S/o Mallaiah, Occ - Owner of Qualis Vechile No. AP-12-14239, R/o H.No.3-10-1, Old Kndi Village, Sanga Reddy Mandal, Medak Dist.

¶15

...Respondents/Respondent No.1

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. K RAJESHWAR RAO

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI SRIDHAR LONKALA

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : None appeared

¶19

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

I i i i !

I I i i I II

I I

fi l lII! r

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶26

M.A.C.M.A. No.3t44 0F 2014

¶27

]UDG MENT:

¶28

On 30.09.2023, the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat held at Hyderabad and an Award was passed by the Lok Adalat.

¶29

In view of the same, the M.A.C.M.A. is disposed of in terms oF the Award. dated 30.09.2023, passed by the Lok

¶30

Adalat. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶32

closed.

¶33

SD/- V HARI PRASAD, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy (With records, if any)

¶38

One CC to SRl. K RAJESHWAR RAO. Advocate [OPUC]

¶39

One CC to SRI SRIDHAR LONKALA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶40

Two CD Copies

¶41

Enclosed a copy of Award passed by Lok Adalat

ADK

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011112023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.N o.3144 of 2014

¶47

t oR lHE S14 I^.
$(
oo
19 t4As ?024 :
(;)
j
* -a
'sP4TcH!:o

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE MACMA IN TERMS OF THE AWARD PASSED BY LOK ADALAT WITHOUT COSTS

/
ID<br>

l I

i t x iI I

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMAATTTEE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD.

¶53

iIt
t
I
1l
t
t, I
I
SERV 6
l o5a
,
tsxisl'F
Slatc

¶54

lunder^{Seclion l9 ot the,Legot} S6rylce3 Aulllodlies Act, l98Z (Centol Act)l

¶55

Date:-30-09- 2073

¶56

Present:^.1. HoniblqFti.trustice. Laxmi Ilarayana Alishetty, (rudg€. ot ltlg[ coun for tte stite of Telangan:) Chaimed, ':.;, .^...,.

¶57

Sri Panakanti Satish Kumar, Advocate, l,l€mber

¶58

sri R.Balasubrahmanyam, Advocate i,tember

¶59

lvtA€t{A. No.3144 of 2014

¶60

(Before the Hon'btq High Court)

¶61

AGAINST ..

¶62

M.V.O. P.No 608 of 2O12

¶63

(On the fite of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunat_cum-principaI District Judge, Medak At Sangareddy)

¶64

Between:

¶65

The Authorized Off icer,

.: i::

M/s Retiance General lnsurance Co Ltd., Through its DivisionaI Manager, Abids, Hyderabad. .. ., _ ....Appettant/Respondenr No.z

¶70

And

¶71

'.;
'1. J. lvlattesh atias Maltesham Slo Vitiataiah,
Aged 28 years, Occ: Security Guard,
R/o. Singapuram Village, Shankerpatty Mandat, '
District Medak.
..,Respondent/petitioner

¶72

T.Gnaneshwar 5/o Mattaiah,

¶73

: ',

¶74

Age: Major, Occ: Owner of euatis Vehicte . '

¶75

Otd Kandi Vittage, Sangareddy rrtandat, District itedak.

¶76

...Respondents/Respandent l
,, t

¶77

AWARD,I ' :

¶78

rhis is an appeat.fited by the Appeftindiii.'j,ie;" company charrensins the
order dated 11-11-2013 passed in M!O.f.!g;60S of 2012 by the Chairman,
Motor Accident Ctaims Tribuna[icum-Rrifuipat District Judge, Medak At
SangaredCy.

¶79

sri Mohammed Abdut Shabbeer, Senior Manager-Ctaims Legat - the authorized
representative of Appettant/ lnsurance , Company, has appeared and
represented that the insurance Company decided not to pursue the present
appeal and therefore they are withdrawing the appeat,
-'b,+ {tL--:l-- *v

: J I I I : I ;

:. ihe said representation is iecorded and the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, d confirming the judgment and decree of the court/Tribunat betow. The arnount, if any, remaining unpaid to the ctaimant(s) shatt be deposited by the lnsurance Company within one month from the date of receipt of the. award, aiong with interest.

¶89

On such deposit, the Respondent/Ctaimant(s) is/are permitted to withdraw his/her/their respective amount/s as per the award passed by the Tribunat/MACT.

¶90

ln case, the parties subsequently come to llnow about fiting of cross appeat/cross objection, they are given tiberty to seek recar.l of this Order/Award,

¶91

Court fee paid on this appeat shatl be refunded.

¶92

No costs.

¶93

For Relianco General lnsurance Co. Ltd
^,,il"4frd"*,w
Appellant/Respondent No.z
Insurance Com
.-4)/4-- \N/
CHAIRAAAN MEMBER MEMBER
€s
o
is$
I of.rth mittee)
/hsi:t o<br>

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. J Mallesh Allias Mallesham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. J Mallesh Allias Mallesham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Laxman Nayak and Another Vs M/S M.M. Travels and Another

A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Another Vs M.Vijaya Laxmi and 2 Others

Uppula Anjani Prasad Vs Gourishetti Maruthi Kiran

K. Ramchandra Chary, Vs C.S. Kumar

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., and Another Vs Elagandula Srinivas Chary and 3 Others

P.Veerannapeta , Panyala Raghupathi Reddy Vs Gangapuram Srinivas