Dismissed

Munagala Sandhya Rani v. P.Thirupathaiah

Telangana HC10 Mar 2023MACMA/4311/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a claim petition by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the claim primarily due to a discrepancy in the vehicle number and the failure of the claimants to substantiate their case with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against the dismissal of the claim petition was allowed insofar as to restore the status quo, effectively dismissing the appeal.

Munagala Sandhya Rani Vs P.Thirupathaiah — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²³⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF I/,IARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NO:4311 OF 2008

¶7

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in MVOP No.171 of 2007 dated 1210512008 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Munagala Sandhya Rani, W/o.Saidi Reddy, Hindu Housewife F/o.Lakshmipuram Village, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

¶10

Munagala Manasa, D/o.Saidi Reddy, age 8 years, Hindu Student Rl/o.Lakshmipuram Village, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

¶11

Munagala Madhukar Reddy, S/o.Saidi Reddy, age 6 years, Hindu Student Rl/o.Lakshmipuram Village, Iriliryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

¶12

Munagala Rami Reddy, S/o.Matta Reddy, Hindu Ryo.Lakshmipuram Village, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

¶13

Munagala Kotamma, S/o.Rami Reddy, Hindu Housewife Hindu Rl/o.Lakshmipuram Village, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. [Petitioners^{2 & 3 are minorsrep theirmother& guardian} Smt Munagala sandhya Rani Petitioner No'11

¶14

...AppELLANTs/pETrroNERS

¶15

AND

¶16

P.Thirupathaiah, S/o-Venkatramudu, Aged tVajor Business, Owner of Lorry Bearing No.AP 02 T 6719 R/o.D.No.20/333, Ambarapu Veehi, Old town, Anantapur.

¶17

The Divisional Manager, Oriental lnsurance Company Limited rep by its Divisional Manager O/o.Kalpana Complex, RP Road, PB No.7, Anantapur District.

¶18

(Policy No.1 007 11734-valid from^'t 6/0211 997 to 15lO2l2O0B)

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

For the Appellants : SRI PONNAM MAHESH BABU, Advocate

¶21

For the Respondent No.2 : SMT I.MAAMU VANI, Advocate

¶22

The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT

¶23

THE HONOL RABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KAVI{E(iANTI

¶24

M.A.C.M.A.No.43Ll of 2oo8

¶25

JUDGMENT:

¶26

This i:; ,: n appezll preferred lty the claimirnts ( u tstroning lhc ordcr daterl 12.0'i.2008 passed in O.p.No. lT I <)1 2OO',, on the filc of tl.rc ll AdditLorr:rl District .Iudge, Nalgonda at Surrir:rpe. rr.herctx. thc court belo!('ltrrs r ismjsserl their claim petition.

¶27

WIt, n l-is ntatter came on 3l.Ol.2O2:t, :Ls ll ert. \.as n() rcplese ntiiti, )n {)ri bchalf of the insurz:nce compirnY thorrl.,rr rrotir:c $.us scrvecl, tltis coun l-as appoipted Ms. I. Maamtr \ir1i t,r t(-lll-(,sL.l.rI u1 t hcir lreh:rll.

¶28

Furr lrr.r., ln ()7.O2.2023, a rcpresentatiorr \,as r t:rr e b-r. tltc lc:rrncd colrrs( lr r the clirimants thiit the flle u,as taker- r',r'rrv ll' rh. pirrties and rrs llre^-e was no vakirl.rt filed on t teir lr,, tirl^-, as tltc appeai is of tlr:' etr 20O8, this court has app()intccl lrlr.. I)onnanr Mrrhcsh R:tlr r, irs c11al aicl counsel [r;r thc appellarrts.

¶29

Ila*i.g lrt ar.d learned counsel on eilher si le anl tr:rusecl tlrt, rl)lilr' mill,'^,l ()r rt cot-d

¶30

Lc:r.rt.rl <: rL nscl frtr the claimunts submit: that lr., r,,xamini.g tlrc rvitnesst,; i t'. PW1 to PWS, the claimarrts havc ;,1 r,y1,1l g|1211 i1 cc.-'('.1 lorn * rrsi irrv.lve<l in the irccident. II. sr-rbnrls lhilt jLlst bccaLrse Llrc .rrr.l,.-'r or' th(' vchicle u.zrs u.rongl1, n)(,n(ior(,, l. t lc u()ru-t bclorv lras rlisrnr;sr d thc clairn petition.

¶31

LK, J MACMA 4311 2008

¶32

¶33

It is the case of the claimants that the torry bearing No.Ap02-T-6719 was released from Rasi Ceme nt Factory on [he night of 20.O5.I997 at 12OO hours with delivery challan No.9556059 and gate pass No.59 18 with cement load and thc lorry passe d through the Miryalguda at the relevant point ol timc. It is their further case that as the as the accident has taken place at that relevant point of time, the court below ought to havc believed the version of the claimants. It is their further case that in the light of the evidencc adduced by the appellants, the court below ought to have held ou,ncr of the vehicle as well as insurance company liabte lor the accident and ought to have granted the compensation.

¶34

Learned counsel appcaring for the insurar-rcc company submits that initially, the appellants havc staLcd the number of the crime vehicle as AP-02-T-67 18, but in the FIR, it is merr [ioncd that thc said number belongs to a jeep. Shc submits that according to the claimants, the vehicle was coming from thc Rasi Cemcr-rt factory and therc is a delivery challan and gatc pass also me ntior-red, but, however, none of these documents wcre marked. She submits that in the earlier round of litigation when an appeal came to be filcd before this court by the appellants, this court has rcmanded the matter to thc court below giving an opportunity to thc claimants to substantiate their case. She submits that even aftcr t[-rc remand also, no evidcnce

¶35

LK, J MI CI,IA 4311 200a

¶36

¶37

r'.s rr.clu.t'<l bt t re parties befort: the court bel.,, as suclr, t^c court bclorv h.s agar r ,lismissc<l thc claim petition. lt is s rbrnitted that btrr<len iics; on t.rc ciaimants to pr.ove that the accirler t [rrs happened dLt(' t() llt(' rtr_'g1r:1cnce ol' the driver o[ thc vehiclc. Slre sLt[]mits that tl.rr' iclc,tit, .I hr: r,ehiclc itsclf is in dispute, tht. c:lr rt belo, has rigltt lr, <lrsntisse( t hc pctitioll

¶38

8 In rlt;s L:l se, initiallr,, tl.re claimants havt. gn,:n the r::rimc 't'.i.it'^{rr.r,',:r:rs Ap ).1_671t3 saying that} tllc sairl^,rc,hicle u..s i.v.l'c. l. rh(' : r:t ident Tl,rerea[tcr, they have givt:n tlrc r. Lrm,cr irs AP 0.2^'f (r7 I !) s; r1, Lr-rg thal thc said vehicle r\ as ir vllvr cl in tltc rtr:ciclt'nt :ln(l jt s a lorry. coming lrom Rasi Cement [iac1o11,. The t'lirirrrrrrts Iri]c,cl to aclcluce .lny eviclence ln support trl th:ir cjtrrrrr Wlrt'rr tlrr.rc u rrs :r discrt:p:rncy arising in the nrtrnber_ rl. Ire crimc vchiclt., this (.( ur i has rc.mirnded the appeal ancl hou rr.er, no sle ps ryt'rc Lirkcn ltl tf r: claimrrnts before the court bclou. lo acl,jucc :rnt_ t'r,iclc.r'e * itlr rr,3 rrd to the .umber of the crime vehir:lc rnvolvcri irr t hr: ir< c idclt t

¶39

() Itr thirr,^.ir:rv of t[rr: rnattcr, the court bclor', ha s rigl-r tlv disntisst'cl tlre c.lr ir-r petition ar.rcl tl_ris court fincls

¶40

Il (' re:LSonS to intt'rli r-c u itl' the ,,r(ler p.rssccl lty the court beloir,.

¶41

Ar.c'or clr rit . the alt1tt,,rl is rlismissecl

¶42

LK, J MACMA_4311_2008

¶43

¶44

Pending miscellaneous^{petitions,if any, shall stand closed}

¶45

¶46

/iTRUE COPYII

¶47

Sd/-K.SAI KUMARI ASSISTANT REGIS

¶48

SECTION OFFICER

¶49

The chairman, Motor Accidents craims Tribunar -cum- [ Additionar District Judge, Suryapet.

¶50

?. 9n" 9n"^{CC to Sri Ponnam Mahesh Babu, to Sri Ponnam Mahesh Babu,} Advocate tOpUCI

¶51

?. 9n" 9n"^{CC to Sri Ponnam Mahesh Babu, to Sri Ponnam Mahesh Babu,} 3 Qne CC to Smt t.Maamu Vani, Advocate tOp0Ct'4. Two CD CopiesTwo CD CopiesCD CopiesCopies

¶52

Two CD CopiesTwo CD CopiesCD CopiesCopies

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/03/2023

JUOGMENT

MACMA.No.4311 of 2008

¶59

-':-:- : .-
i-- .) i.r,';: .O.<br>'/<
)) r3 luN ?u8 I
.a
,,i
<br>.- * ../
l. '{ 'i ,-'?.

DISMISSED

c4"s
@
ho_
{tat

[³²³⁰ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶64

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶65

PRESENT

¶66

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶67

M.A.C.M.A. NO:4311 OF 2008

¶68

Between:

¶69

llynagala Sandhya Rani, Wo.Saidi Reddy, Hindu Housewife Rl/o.Lakshmipuram Village, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

¶70

Munagala Manasa, D/o.Saidi Reddy, age 8 years, Hindu Student Rl/o,Lakshmipuram Village, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda Diitrict.

¶71

Munagala Madhukar Reddy, S/o.Saidi Reddy, age 6 years, Hindu Student R:/o.Lakshmipuram Village, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

¶72

Munagala .Rami.Reddy, S/o-Matta Reddy, Hindu Rt/o.Lakshmipuram Viilage, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

¶73

Munagala Kotamma, Sio.Rami Reddy, Hindu Housewife Hindu R:/o.Lakshmipuram Village, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. [Petitioners^{2 &} 3^{are minors} rep their mother & guardian Smt Munagala Sandhva Rani Petitioner No'11

¶74

...A''ELLANTS/,ET',.NERS

¶75

AND

¶76

1 P.Thirupathaiah, S/o.Venkatramudu, Aged Major Business, Ownerof Lorry Bearing No.AP 02 T 6719 R/o.D.No.20/333, Ambarapu Veehi, Otd town, Anantapur.

¶77

2 The Divisional Manager, Oriental lnsurance Company Limited rep by its Divisional Manager Oio.Kalpana CompleX, RP R;ad, pB No.7, Anantapur District.

¶78

(Policy No.1 00711734-valid from 16/02/1 997 to 15102t2OO81..ar"Or="r,

¶79

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in MVOP No.171 of 2007 dated 12lO5l2OOB on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

¶80

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 Sri Ponnam Mahesh Babu, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt l.Maamu Vani, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and None Appeared Advocate for R1.

¶81

This Court doth Ord ;r and decree as follows :

¶82

That the L/.A( ttrlA lte and hereby is dismissed.

¶83

That there be no Order as to costs in this appeal

¶84

SC/-K.SAI KUMARI AST;ISiTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY//

¶85

¶86

:;ECTIOMOFFICER

¶87

¶88

The Chairna r, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunar -cunr- ll A,dditional District Judge, Nalgo rd a at Suryapet.

¶89

Two CD Copi :s

)

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/03/2023

DECREE

MACMA.No.4311 of 2008

¶97

DISMISSED.

¶98

Q'*'E aro q;v'

Munagala Sandhya Rani v. P.Thirupathaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munagala Sandhya Rani v. P.Thirupathaiah

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

V.Thirupathi Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited

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

Smt. Humeera Fathima Vs Mrs. B.Janardhan Reddy

The New India Assurance Company Vs Masula Sathavva

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Shake Naga Malleswari and 6 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad. Vs Puppala Voddemma, Nizamabad Dist., and 5 Ano.