Dismissed

Paduri Narsimha Reddy v. K.Narsimha Reddy and Anr.

Telangana HC15 Nov 2023MACMA/804/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal filed by a pillion rider seeking compensation. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the scooter involved was not in the accident, leading to the dismissal of the claim with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None granted; previous award confirming non-involvement of the scooter is maintained.

Paduri Narsimha Reddy Vs K.Narsimha Reddy and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAYOF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 804 OF 2006

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act., againsl the order dated '10.01 .2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.492 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum-V Additional District & S€ssions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalaguda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Paduri Narsimha Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, aged about 33 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Molkapatnam Village, Vemulapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶10

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶11

Al'lD

¶12

K.Narsimha Reddy, S/o Laxminarsimha Reddy, R/o Molkapatnam Village of Vemulapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶13

The United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd., Miryalaguda, rep by its Manager.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appetlant: SRl. KIRAN PALAKURTHI

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N MOHAN KRISHNA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1:-

¶18

The Court made the following: JUOGMENT

¶19

¶20

HOITOURABLE SRI WSTICE NAGESH BIIEEMAPAKA

¶21

M.A.C.M.A.No. 804 0F 2fi)6

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This appeal is frled under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioner/appellant, a ggrieved by the award and decree, dared 10.01.2006 passed in O.p.No.492 of 2O03 on the hle of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalguda (for short "the Tribunal.).

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that the on O3.1O.2002 at about 06:3O PM., the petitioner was going as a pillion rider on the scooter bearing No.Ap-24-G-g231 of the respondent No. 1 from Molkapatnam in order to go to Miryalguda, on the way when it reached near Rajendra parboiled Rice Mill in the outskirts of Shettipalem village, trren the rider of ttre said scooter dashed to a Kilometer stone No.4 by seeing the lights of opposite vehicle. As a result of which, the petitioner had sustained fracture of left leg both bones and grievous injuries all over the body. The above accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the scooter of the respondent No.l. The

¶26

¶27

NBK, J MACMA 804 2@6

¶28

accident reported to P.S. Vemulapally, who registered it as Cr.No.85/2OO2 for the offence under Section 338 of IPC against the driver of the scooter. It is further submitted that the petitioner was hale and healthy person prior to the accident. He is aged about 3O years at the time of accident and he was earning not less than Rs.3,000/- per month on agriculture and he used to contribute the same for the maintenance and welfare of his large family. The petitioner had been admitted in Jyothi Hospitals, Miryalguda and later he had taken treatment in the Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad. The petitioner is sLill suffering from pain and other obligations. The petitioner is unable to do agriculture works. The respondent Nos.l and 2 being the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle involved in the accident are jointly and severally liable to pay the said sum of Rs. 1,50,0O0/to the petitioner.

¶29

Before the Tribunal, respondent No.l remained exparte. Respondent No,2 filed counter and denied all the averments of the counter, except the averments specifrcally admitted by them and prayed to dismiss this petition.

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

NBK, J MACMA 804 2006

¶33

t \

¶34

¶35

l) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident, and if so, whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the scooter bearing No.AP-24-G-8231?

¶36

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and by whom it should be paid?

¶37

1. To what relieP

¶38

During trial, on behalf of the petitioners, pW-1 and pW-2 are examined and Exs.Al to A9 are marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, RW-l to RW-3 are examined and got marked Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-13.

¶39

After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the claimant/ injured has filed t.I:e present appeal.

¶40

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶41

The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contended that the involvement of the crime vehicle in the alleged accident was not in dispute and the learned tribunal failed to appreciate ttre said fact and dismissed the petition.

¶42

¶43

¶44

NAK, J MACMA_804_2006

¶45

¶46

The main grievance of the appellant is that dispute with regard to the non-involvement of the crime vehicle in the alleged accident. A keen perusal of the impugned order would goes to show that ttre Tribunal passed a well reasoned order by taking into consideration all the aspects, and held that the respondent No.2 has succeeded in establishing tl,re non_involvement of the alleged crime vehicle/scooter in t}le said accident. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the hnding arrived at by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶47

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, confirming the award and decree, dated 1O.O1.2006 passed in O.p.No.492 of 20O3 on the hle of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalguda. There shall be no ord.er as ro costs.

¶48

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stald

¶49

closed.

¶50

Sd/- T. VIJAY KUM ASSISTANT REGI

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum-V Additional District^& Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalaguda.(With Records if any) 2. One CC to SRl. KIRAN PALAKURTHI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. N MOHAN KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

Two CD Copies Pr/kam

¶56

¶57

HIGH COURT DATED: 1St11l2OZ3

¶58

.. 'q.r-+'
.r,-.{Brr,#

¶59

JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.B04 of 2006

¶60

STA TE Or
(<
:)lf t $ [t$ 1$1'
+. ,,'/
,r. ,).'
\r.

¶61

DISMISSING THE MACMA WTHOUT COSTS

¶62

6n6
,x

¶63

¶64

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶65

¶66

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶67

PRESENT

¶68

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶69

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 804^{OF 2006}

¶70

Between:

¶71

Paduri Narsimha Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, aged about 33^years, Occ Agriorlture Ri/o lvlolkapatnam ViHage, Vemulapalli Mandal,^{Nalgonda District.} ... PETTTIONER/APPELLANT

¶72

AND

¶73

K.Narsimha Reddy, S/o Laxminarsimha Reddy, R/o Molkapatnam^Village of Vemulapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶74

..,-ihi' w

¶75

The United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd., Miryalaguda, rep by its Manager.

¶76

...RESPONOENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶77

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act., against the order dated 10.01 .2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.492 of 20O3 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalaguda.

¶78

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the award and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. KIRAN PALAKURTHI, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRI N MOHAN KRISHNA, Advocate for the Respondent no.2.

¶79

This Court Doth Order and Oecree as follows:

¶80

That this appeal be and hereby is dismissed, confirming the award and decree dated 10{1-2006 passed in O.P.No.492 of 2003;

¶81

That there shall be no order as to cos{s in this appeal.

¶82

Sd/- T. VIJAY KUM ASSISTANTREGIS

//TRUE COPY//

sEcTtoN oFFlcER

The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalaguda.

¶87

Two CD Copies

¶88

¶89

HIGH COURT DATED: 1511112023

¶90

,il.r.4'ii,iF-:.

¶91

DECREE MACMA.No.8O4 of 200G

¶92

--i, i: ''+i

¶93

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶94

@)r'ia eo.-.-,gV*

Paduri Narsimha Reddy v. K.Narsimha Reddy and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paduri Narsimha Reddy v. K.Narsimha Reddy and Anr.

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

Sri Sai Balaji Ginning and Oil Mills Vs Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited.

Khubchand Roopani, S/o. Meharchand Roopani, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company

M/s. Kitchen Appliances India Ltd., Branch Office Vs Government of Andhra pradesh rep by its Principal

M/s. Murali Manpower Agencies Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Natuva Kavitha Vs The State of Telangana

United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs G.Sandhya