Dismissed

Alladi Phani Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by District Collector and Agent

Telangana HC21 Aug 2023MACMA/600/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal. The appellant filed the appeal without issuing the mandatory notice to the government respondent under Section 80 of the CPC. The High Court adhered to this procedural defect as grounds for dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 600 of 2011 was dismissed without costs, confirming the Tribunal's decree.

Alladi Phani Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY^{FIRST DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TV./ENTYTHREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPURAJESHWAR RAO}

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT^{CIVIL MISCELLANE OUS APPEALNO:600OF 2011}

¶7

AppealfiledUnderSection,lT3ofMotorVehiclesActagainsttheorder.and decree in'M.V.O.P.No.553^{0f 2002 daledj0-12-2008 0n the file of the court of the} ChairmanMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-CUm-DlstrictJudge,Adilabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Alladi Phani Kumar,^S/o Satyanarayana^{R/o. Asifabad, Asifabad Town'} Adilabad District.

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 State of Andhra Pradesh,^{rep. by DistrictCollector andAgentof Government'} Adiiabad.

¶13

The Secretary,^{Departrnent of Family Welfare, Governmentof Andhra}

¶14

piiAesn, H-eiock,'H-etock, A- P'secietariat' Hyderabad'

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant^{: SRl.I3HANUMURTHY BALA}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents:^{GP FORARBITRATION}

¶18

The Court delivered the^{following: JUDGMENT}

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JI'fiTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RA"IESHWAR RAO}

¶20

M.A.C.M.A .No.6OO OF 2O11

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

.^{This appeal frled by the appellant/petitioner under Section} 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by^{the judgmentand} decree dated 10.12.2008,^passed in^{M.V.O.P.No.553 of 2OO2 by} the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims^{Tribunal-cum-District} Judge, Adilabad (for short "the Tribunal').

¶23

For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter^{referred to} as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that on 23.lO.2OOl in^the evening, the petitioner, along with his^{sisters and one Gaffar were} proceeding in a^jeep from Bellampalli to Asifabad and that on^the way at about 9.20 p.m., in the outskirts of Nakkalguda^Village,an Ambulance Van bearing No.AP.09.V.6988 belonging^tothe respondents, came in the opposite direction in a high^{speed and} hit the jeep in which he was travelling. As a result, he^suffered simple and grievous injuries and suffered^{permanent disability.}

¶25

¶26

RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.6m of m11

¶27

The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.7,OO,OOO/-.

¶28

. Respondent No. 1 and 2 fied a written statement before the Tribunal denying the allegations in the petition that^the accident occurred only due to the fault of the driver of the^Jeep, and the driver of the Ambulance was not responsible for^the accident.

¶29

To prove his case, the petitioner examined PWs I to 3 and got marked Exs.Al to A8. On behalf of respondents, examined RWs I and 2, and got Ex.B1.

¶30

On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that there was contributory negligence of both^{vehicles i.e.,} petitioner's vehicle and the Ambulance, as such, the negligence was attributed 5O% to each vehicle. Though the Tribunal^awarded Rs. 1,OO,OO0/- to the petitioner, but due to 5O"l' negligence on^the part of the driver of the petitioner's vehicle, he was awarded Rs.SO,OOO/- only with interest at^{7.5%o p.a} from the^date of^O.P. till its realization.

¶31

¶32

RRN, J M.A.C.M.A. No.600 of 2011

ji I I I ! i I i

\ t

I I

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶37

8 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal granted Rs. 15,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and granted Rs.5O.OOO/-under the head of the injury. They are very meager amounts and prayed to allow the appea,l.

¶38

9 . lrarned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner files present OP without issuing notice to the respondents under Section 80 of CPC. He further submitted that as per rhe Chand.roLkant Gouind Deshmukh Vs The State of Maharashtra through Collector Amra oathi and. anothert, tn this case, the OP is liled without issuing aly notice to rhe respondents, and the vehicle belongs to the Government vehicle. The above said judgment also discloses that as follows:

¶39

"6.The question thus that arises for our consideration turns on the contraction of Section 80 of the CPC and the scope and ambit of the Madhya Pradesh public Trusts Act.

¶40

7.We would first refer to Section 80of the CpC and then consider the scheme of the Act. The Material part oi Section 80 reads:

¶41

"No suit shall be instituted, a;go:inst the Government (including the State of Jammu and, Kashmir) or against a public officer in respect of ang act

¶42

1996 SCC Ollrnc Eorrr l. ,\lR 1970 llom 301 (FB):1996 MAh LJ 02 (FB)

¶43

¶44

RRN,J M.A.C.M.a. No.600 of 2011

¶45

¶46

,I II

¶47

purporting to be done bg such public ofJicer in his official capacitg, untll the expiration of two months next eJter notlce in writing hqs been deliuered to or lefi at the olfice of'.

¶48

Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶49

As per the above submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is not interfering with the^judgment and decree dated 10.12.2008, in M.V.O.P. No.553 of 2OO2 passed by the Tribunal.

¶50

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A No.6O0 of 2Ol1 is dismissed by confirming the Tribunal^judgment and decree dated IO.l2.2OO8, in M.V.O.P.No.553 of 2002. No order as to costs

¶51

As a sequel of which, miscellaneous petitions, if any

¶52

pending, shall stand closed.

¶53

SD/. P CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA' ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR. ?

¶54

/ITRUE coPY/'

¶55

aEcrtoN oFFtcER

¶56

To, 1 Th^{j (t} ha,rman Motor^{AccidentclaimsTribunal-cum- DistrictJudgeAdilabad} (wrih records. if anY)

¶57

Z bne CC to SRI^{BHANU MURTHY BALA,Advocate [OPUC]} i Two CCs to GP^{FOR ARBITRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶58

4 Trr l i) D Copies

AD{A{r

HIGH COURT

DATED:2110812023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.600 ot 2011

k'
,:-) t'i. rl
rJ 2 6 rEB 2i]14
t
.'.].i
*
-. ..-'.-, | ;t'
t-i_-.--r-:

¶66

DISMISSING THE MACMA Wl"i"H(;uT CO$TS

¶67

"\r-<br>b
'${'

¶68

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶69

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶70

PRESENT

¶71

THE I.iONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶72

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 600 OF 2011

¶73

Between,

¶74

Alladi Phani Kumar. S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Asifabad, Asifabad Town, Adilabad Distnct.

¶75

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶76

AND

¶77

1 . State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by District Collector and Agent of Government. Adilabad.

¶78

The Secretary, Department of Family Welfare,, Government of Andhra Pradesh, H-Block, H-Block, A. P.Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶79

..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶80

Appeal filed Under Section^'173 of tVotor Vehrcles Act against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P No 553 of 2002 dated 10-12-2008 on the file of the Court of the Chairnran fr4otor Accident Clarms Trrbunal-cum- District Judge, Adilabad.

¶81

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the.ludgflient ard Deiree of the Lorrver Court and the material^papers in the MVOP ar;d :rpon reirrrirg the a!',Junrents of SRI BHANU MURTHY BALA, Advocate for the Appellant and GP FOR ARBITRATION, Advocate for the Respondents

¶82

i i I i I , i 1

¶83

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶84