Dismissed

Maloth Mgji v. Kotesh Gandhi

Telangana HC12 Aug 2024MACMA/1351/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's refusal to grant compensation. The Court found the appellant's explanation for a 42-day delay in filing the complaint improbable and held there were no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's findings.

What did the court decide?

The Appeal is dismissed and miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Maloth Mgji Vs Kotesh Gandhi — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

oF TELANGANA rN rHE H|GH "orTfSIr',J*iEIiE

¶2

NNONDAY '^{THETWELFTHDAY OF AUGUST} iw-o trousAND^{AND TWENTYFouR}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER}

¶5

US APP^{EAL NO1351 0F 2012} ruoTo^{R ACCI DENTCIVILMISCELLANEO}

¶6

Appeal^{u/sec 173 of Motor vehiclesnc!aO-a1n^stthe Judgment and decree} dared 07t12t2010^{passed il"t,1*Aiop.N;1ois it zoot bv the Motor Accidents} bffi. iriur"rl(v^{Addl District Judse (FTC) at Kothagudem'}

¶7

Between

¶8

Maloth^{Mgji, S/o Laxma Gangman in So.uth Central Railway'DornakalFUo} Barlagudem^{Village, KamepiirVrrrrinoal'Khammam District'}

¶9

...Appellant

¶10

AND

¶11

1 5il"f [,3 il1i:^{;":#flr#ili,3:1",1#lIH X[Bi #ffi : iili5#;*Li'?ll} 2 fisl?$J:iffrofi;'fl'J'lR::t"s,?,"ss,xH,HT,*ffu''[38;lXJl:Y$6q81"'

¶12

...ResPondents

¶13

Counsel for^{the Appellant(s):SriS'ChalapathiRao}

¶14

Et\

¶15

Counsel^{for the Respondents:TlvlahenderRao}

¶16

The Court^{made the following: Judgment}

i i i lI

t !

I \

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶21

M.A.C.M.A No.1351 OF 2OL2

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This claimant is questioning the refusal of the Tribunal to grant compensation mainly on the following grounds:-

¶24

There is delay of 42 days in lodging the complaint.

¶25

It is mentioned in the report/Ex.P.4, patient was undr:r the influence of alcohol.

¶26

1'he hospital bills appear to have been fabricate,i since they are manual bills, no name of the medical shop or hospit.al are mentioned.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

¶28

counscl appearin g for the 2nd respondent-lnsurance Compatry.

¶29

The casc cf the claimant is that while he was going on his two rvheeler i.e., llero Honda Splendor motorcycle and wnen he reachcd the place namely Lachathanda, the offending vehicle whidh is TVS Vic:or motorcycle driven by its Driver Marusetti Vij ay I Kumar in a rasL, and negligent manner hit him resulting in five fracturcs. Then rtne Auto Driver Sanga Naik stopped arLd 1Og Ambulance u,as called and the claimant was taken to Xinnera hospital. Since the Driver of the TVS motorcycle stated that he u.ould bear tl-re expcnditure, no complaint was filed. Hcwcver,

1_- i :il i3l

tr:'

since^{he failed to reimburse the medical expenditure,ultimately,} the^{complaint was filed on 06.06.2007with a delay of 42 days.}

¶35

Having^{gone through the record,the only reason givenby} the^{appellantis that he waitedfor 42 days for reimbursement of} hospital^{bil1s, failing which he lodgeda complaint. The said} reason^{appearsto be improbable.It is not as thoughthe claimant} was un-conscious^{or in the hospital for entire period, he was} discharged^{from the hospital onO7.O5.2OO7. One month} thereafter,^{the present F.I-R was ftled. On the faceof it, it appears} that the^{complaint was fabricated only for the purpose of seeking} compensation.

¶36

S. There are no^{grounds to interfere with the Iindings of the} Tribunal.^{Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. Miscelianeous} applications,^{if any pending, shall standciosed.}

¶37

Sd/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTAN REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The lvlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal(V Addl. District Judge (FfC) at Kothagudem.( with records if any)

¶42

One CC to Sri. S.Chalapathi Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶43

One CC to SRl.T.Mahender Rao, Advocate tOpUCI

¶44

Two CD Copies

.:r !r ..t

t I

HIGH COURT

DATEDj210812024

,f 11F- S 'i,r)
( i)F. o^l
e
o 23 0:t iu14 p'l
.i:
a)
1_:p..1.1 11ur,!- ) -.rj"

¶51

JUDGIMENT

¶52

MAC[,4A.No.1 351 of 2012

¶53

tM.A.C.M.A. lS DlStvllSSED @oT.'4 1y 9)

¶54

Maloth Mgji v. Kotesh Gandhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maloth Mgji v. Kotesh Gandhi

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

Suram Jayaram, Nizamabad Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by Pp.,High Court of a.P.,Hyderabad

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Abdul Khadar and Another

M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt. N.Veeramma and 7 Others

Jalla Saidulu and 2 Others Vs Thumoz Hari Prasad and Another

Mohd. Abdullah Munawar, Vs M/s. Sri Balaji Agencies

Smt. M. Chandrakala, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.