Dismissed

V.Thirupathi v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited

Telangana HC9 Mar 2023MACMA/3894/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an order and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded compensation without adducing evidence. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's award and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and there shall be no order as to costs.

V.Thirupathi Vs Icici Lombard General… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²³⁰ ]

¶2

I I I I l i I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

M.A.C.M.A.No.3894 of 2012

¶8

Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in o.P.No.171 of 2008 dated 16.09.201 1 on the file of the court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal -cum- XX Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Secunderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

V.Thirupathi, S/o Late V.Posham, aged 25 years, Occ: Student R/o g_.1_56/4, Addgutta, East Marredpally, Secunderabad^-

¶11

...APPELLANT/PETITONER

¶12

AND

¶13

lClCl Lombard General lnsurance Company Limited, Osman plaza, No. 6_3352/'1, 3rdand 4th floors, Osman^plaza, Ro-ad No. 1, Banjara HilL;'^{-- -} Hyderabad.

¶14

t 2. N.Sridhar, S/o Raja Mouli, aged 35 years, Occ: Business, Rt/o H.No.28-1-86, Bellampalti, Adila6ad Oistiictl .-^---

¶15

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDE NTI

¶16

Counsel forthe Appellant: SRI SUDARSHAN S. REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI RAMACHANDRA REDDY GADI

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: NONEAPPEARED

¶19

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

\ \

i I I i I I I I

HON'BLE^{SMT..'US'I'ICIi LALIl'I IA KANNEGAN'I'I}

¶25

M.A.C.N'I.,.\ No.3894 <tf 2012

¶26

JUDGM^ENT:

¶27

This is^{an appeal lilcd try the appellant/clairnant aggrieved by} the^{judgmentand decree datcdt(r.09.20 I I in O.P.No. 171 of 2008 on} the file^{of the AdditionalclhainnanAccidcr.rts claims Tribunal-cum-} XX Additional^{Clhief Judgc, City Civil Court at Secunderabad(for} short,'the^Tribunal')'

¶28

The claim^{petitionis lllecl claiming an arnount of Rs. 10,00,000/-} and the Tribunal^{has awardedan amountof Rs.4,57,000/-. Though no} evidence is let^{in, tl-re 'l-ribnnal has consideredthe incorne as} Rs.3,000/- per^{month and applied the relevantmultiplierand granted} the compensation of^{Rs.4,57,OOOI-.The claimant is none otherthan} tliqbrother of the deceased.^{The parentsof the deceased are no more.} *. :.frSri Gadi Ramachandra^{Reddy, leamed counsel} for^the claimant, .iF,uUfiAt, that the Tribunal has^{not granted} the^reasonable compensation Si under^the other heads.

¶29

Leamed counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the claimant^is the brother of the deceased. Without there being any evidence,^the Tribunal has taken Rs.3,000/- per month and arrived at

¶30

¶31

Rs.4,57,000/-, which is^just and reasonable^{compensation. In the light} of the same, this Court do not hnd any^reason to^{interfere with the}

¶32

award passed by the Tribunal.

¶33

Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A, is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶34

Miscellaneous applications,, pending if any, shall stqnd closed. SD/-K.VENKAIAH

¶35

ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY//

-1

SECNO#dFFICER

To,

The Chairman, MACT -cum-^{XX AdditionalChief Judge,City Civil Court,} Secunderabad.^{(with records)}

¶40

One CC to Sri Sudarshan^{S. Reddy,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶41

One CC to Sri Ramachandra^{Reddy Gadi, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶42

Two CD Copies gbr

{

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0910312023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.3894 ot 2012

¶49

07 L'il ltili I M]

¶50

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

f
(
11 Ylt )

¶52

|³²³⁰¹

¶53

IN THE^{HIGHCOURTFOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶54

THURSDAY,THE^{NINTHDAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶55

PRESENT

¶56

THE HON'BLE^{SMT. JUSTICELALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶57

M.A.C.M.A.No .3894 of 2Q1 2

¶58

Between:

¶59

V.Thirupathi,^{S/o LateV.Posham, aged 25 years, Occ: Student R/o 8-1-56/4,} Addgutta,^{East Marredpally,Secunderabad}

¶60

...APPE LLANT/PETITONER

¶61

AND

¶62

lclcl Lombard^{General lnsurance Company Limited,Osman Plaza,No.6-3-} 35211 , 3td^{and 4th floors, Osman Plaza,Road No. 1 , Banjara Hills,} Hyderabad.

¶63

N.Sridhar,^{S/o RajaMouli, aged 35 years, Occ:Business, Rl/o H.No.28-1-86,} BellamPalli,^{Adilabad District.}

¶64

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDE NTl

¶65

Appeal Under^{Section173of Motor Vehicles_Act against the order anddecree} in O.P.No.'171 of^{2008 dated16'09.2011on the file of the Courtof the Chairman} Motor Accident^{Claims Tribunal} -cum-^{XX AdditionalChief Judge,City Civil Court,} Secunderabad.

¶66

This appeal^{coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal,} the Judgment and^{Decree of the Lower Courtand the materialpapers in the case} and upon hearing^{the arguments of Sri Sudarshan S. Reddy, Advocate for the} Appellant and of^{Sri Ramachandra Reddy Gadi' Advocate for the RespondentNo.'l} and for the Respondent^{No.2 not appeared either in personor by Advocate.}

¶67

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

¶68

'1 . That the I\zIACMA.No.3B94 of 2012 be and hereby is dismissed; and

¶69

Thal there shall be no order as lo costs in this Appeal.

¶70

SD/-K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

L.^.

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, ttzlACT -cum- XX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶76

fwo CD Copies

gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0910312023

DECREE

MACMA.No.3894 ot 2012

¶82

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS (,r r1 \9,.2

V.Thirupathi v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Thirupathi v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited

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 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.M.Mangamma and Anr.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Secunderabad. Vs Sri Bagamathi Carriers, Nandyal and 6 Others

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Secunderabad. Vs G. Sathyawwa , Satyamma and Another

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Janagam Ashok Rao and Another

Smt. Humeera Fathima Vs Mrs. B.Janardhan Reddy

Mohd. Khaleel Vs Syed Azizuddin and Another