Allowed

T. Ravinder v. Anil Kumar and Another

Telangana HC23 Jan 2024MACMA/1626/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 3,73,580. The court accepted the doctor's testimony on disability, adjusted income loss calculations, and awarded aggravated damages for shortening of the leg.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 3,73,580 with interest at 7.5% per annum; Respondent No. 2 directed to deposit the amount within two months.

T. Ravinder Vs Anil Kumar and Another — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I^321s 1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1626 OF 2011

¶8

Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V.Act., against the Judgment and Decree dated 09-11-2010 passed in OP.NO.1158 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad [FTC].

¶9

Between:

¶10

T. Ravinder, S/o Balraj aged 35 years, Occ: Business F/o H.No.1-10-122/11, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad.

¶11

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Anil Kumar, S/o Hanumanth Rao, aged major, Occ: Business Rt/o H.No.3-114, Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by its Regional Manager, Snehalata Apartments, Opp Blue Moon Hotel, Begumpet,

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPDTS

¶16

: SRI. JAGATIIPAL REDDY KASI REDDY Counsel forthe Appellant

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 : SRI N.S. BHASKAR RAO

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

THE HONOLIIIAIII-E Dr. JUSTICE^{G. RADHA Rn NI}

¶20

M.A.( .M.A.. No.l626 of^201I

¶21

JUDGMEN-I':

¶22

This appc'al is lilcd by thc claimant-injured^{aggrievedby the} award and decree dated 09. ll.20l0^{passed in O.P.No. ll58 of} 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims^{Tribunal cum XIII Additional} Chiel Judge^{(FTC). ('it]'} Civil^{Court, Hyderabad(for short 'the} Tribunal')

¶23

2.^'fhe appellant-c lairnant filed a^{petitionunderSection166} ol' the M.V. Act. clainrinq^{cottrpcnsittiot.t of Rs.2,00,000/-lor the} injuries sustained by hirn^{in a rrotor vehicle accident,alleging that} he was aged i3 ;-ears attd^{r'r'esrttrtninga Kirana and GeneralStores} at Ashok Nagar, tlyderabad^{and was earningRs. 15,0001per} month by the date ol'the^{accident.On 14.05.2009at 5.30 PM} white he, along u'ith his^{tatlrer, was proceedingon a Herol{onda} Motor Cyclc^f rorn^{S riranga','ararn of Medchal Mandaltowards} Ilyderabad and on reaching^{Sriratlgavaram x-roads,an Alto Car} bearing No.AP^{28 AS 57i5 cor-ningin oppositedirectionin a rash} and negligerrt manncr^rvith hilth^{spced while trying to oveftake a}

¶24

\t 1( \t I ! t6)6 ol :4t t

¶25

lony hit rhc rnororcl,crc of the crairnant, due to which he and his lather fell down and sustained severe injuries. Ihe claimant sustained lracture of left leg, blunt injury on sr.omach, head injury, lacerations and abrasions on both hands and other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediarely, he was shifted ro Balaji Hospital, Medchal and after first aid, he was shifted to Nivedita Hospital. wherein he was admined as in-patient from 15.05.2009 to 19.05.2009 and sustained permanent disability. The clairnanr submitted that the fraclure of Ieft tibial condyie was operated and fixed with screws and nails. But, his left leg was shortened and his lnovements were restricted resulting limp while walking. He further submitted that police of, lVedchal registered a case vide Crirne No. I68 ol'2009 lor the offlence under Section 33g ol. IpC against the driver of the Alto Car bearing No.Ap 2g AS 5735 and claimed contpensation from respondent Nos. I and 2, the owner and Insurer of the AIto Car.

¶26

3 'Ihe respondent No. I remaine d ex parte

¶27

D..GRR,J Mlcitt l to t06 of 201!

¶28

The respondent No.2-lnsurance Company filed counter denying the petition averments.^'l'he respondent No.2 called for strict prool of the petition averments and contended that the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- was excessive and l-here was no basis for the said calculation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶29

The Tribunal, alier lrarning the issues, conducted an enquiry. The claimant erarnined hirrself as PW. I and got examined the Orthopedic S urgeon, who treated him at Nivedita Hospital, as PW.2 and got rnarked Exs.Al to Al3. No oral evidence was adduced b,v- responcient No.2, but a ccpy of the policy was marked as Ex.B l. l-he Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, l-reld that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.AP 28 AS 5715 and the respondent Nos. I and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the clairnant,

¶30

With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded an affrount ol- Rs.5,000/- towards grievous injury

¶31

¶32

Ot cRR,.l tt t( tt 1 ,o I6:ti ol :Ol I

¶33

sustained by the clairnant, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and sufflering, Rs.30,000/- towards rnedical expenses, Rs. 10,000/_ towards future medical expenses for removal of implants, Rs.9,000/- towards ioss of income lor a period of 3 months @ Rs.3,0001 per month and Rs. 1,000/- torvards extra nourishment and transportation. Thus, in all, the^'fribunal awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/_ with interest at 6Yo per annum ti.orn the date of petition till realization.

¶34

Aggrieved by the said award of the^.tribunal, the clairnant prefcrred rhis appeal contending that the'fribunal lailed to consider the disability susrained by the claimant as srated by pW.2 docror, who rreated him ar Nivedita Hospital. The tribunal failed to consider the docurlents nrarked under Exs.A7, .A9 and A l0 - medical bills fired by the craimant and not considered Ex.All, the estimate issued by the Sablok Flospital for removal of naits. The 'lribunal had not awarded adequate amounts for pain and suffering, loss of amenities in lifle, loss of income, transportation, extm nourishmenl etc., and that the interest also ought to have been awarded at 9%o per annum and prayed to enhance the amount awarded towards compensation.

¶35

*-1 \

¶36

D.-GRR.J ll.4CLlA No.l626 of 201 I

¶37

Heard Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellanrclaimant and Sri N.S. Bhaskar Rao, leamed counsel for the respondent No.2-lnsurance company

¶38

The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended

¶39

that though the appellant claimed rhat he was earning Rs.15,000/_ per month from his business of running Kirana and General Stores, the Tribunal had considered a notional income of Rs.3,000/_ per month. Even in the absence of filing proof of income, the Tribunal ought to have taken atleast a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month as the income of the appellant as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited,. Th. Tribunal failed to consider the evidence ol pW.2 with regard to assessment of disability. Even in rhe absence of the certificate issued by the Medical Board, the evidence ol the doctor, who treated, shall be considered and relied upon the judgment of this Court in A. Chalapathi v. Satyanarayana N. Nuwat and others2. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier

¶40

'1zot+)^z scc^zt_s '^{(zoto) q aLo} zn

¶41

¶42

It.^(;RR.! U4('.\ti No t626 oI20ll

¶43

method and ought to have awarded tuture prospects in assessing the loss of income.

¶44

The learned counsel 1br the respondent No.2-lnsurance Company, on the other hand, contended that no evidence was adduced by the claimant to show that the implants were removed. No X-rays rvere obtained by PW.2 before assessing the disability. No proof of income was filed by the claimant. In the absence of the 'same, the income of the claimant can be considered as only Rs.4,5001 per month as per the^judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limitedr. In the absence of any evidence that the rods were removed, the amount of Rs.10,000/awarded by the T'ribunal also need to be deducted from the compensation awarded and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶45

I l. [n view of the rival contentions of both the learned counsel, the point lor consideration is as to whether the Tribunal assessed the compensation irr a proper manner or not?

¶46

'^{(zon ) r; scc z:o}

¶47

¶48

D..08A,J rt,1c\t,l _\o_l06 oIJ0t I

¶49

The clairnant who rvas examined as PW. I stated in his evidence about the injuries sustained by him and that immediately alier the accident. he was shilied to Balaji Ilospiral, lVledchal and after first aid, he was shifted to Nivedita Ilospital, where he was admitted as inpatient and Dr.Sree Ramulu, Orthopedic Surgeon had treated him. IIe stated that he was operated in Nivedita Hospital lor left leg on I 5.05.2009, rods were inserted and he was discharged on 19.05.2009 and he w,as advised to take bed-rest fbr three months. He stated that he had regularly taken lollow up treatment. He incurred bills worth lts.57.509/-. IIe lurther stated that due to fiacture injury, his left leg was shortened and he was not in a position to move fiom bed and lacing ditficulty in sitting and squatting and he was limping while walking and he was unable to fold his leg, due to the injuries, l.re sustained permanent disabiliry to an extent of 100%.

¶50

IIe got examined the Orthopedic Surgeon ol Nivedita Ortho Centre as PW.2. PW.2 stated that he was practicing in Nivedita Ortho Centrc since l9ll5 and that the claimarrt came to his hospital on 15.05.2009 with an injurv to lefi tibia. He lound rhat

¶51

¶52

¶53

lr. GRR.J t t aC ]1.1 \it I 6:6 of :0 I t

¶54

there^{was fractureof tibial condyle and the samewas operatedand} fixed^{with screws and nails on the satneday i.e. on l5'05'2009and} the claimant^{was discharged on 19.05'2009'He stated that the} claimant^{cameto him regularlylor tbllowup treatmentfor removal} of sutures^{and lbr physiotherapy.'the disabititywas pennanent,the} claimant^{would have difficultyin tenninal movementsof knee} joint. He assessed^{the l'unctionaland physiologicaldisability olthe} claimant^{as l0 to l5Yo and statedthat the operation for removal of} implants^{might cost Rs. 10,000/-to Rs.15,000/-.He admitted that} the claimant^{incurred an cxpenditureof Rs'27,000/- towards his} treatment.

¶55

The^{Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW'2} observing^{that PW.2 was cxaminedin the year 2010i'e' one year} after^{the operation.PW.2stated thatthe claimant had shorteningof} leg to^{an extent of % inch, but no X-rayswereobtained by him to} assess^{the disability.No reasons were assigned by PW'2for} shortening^{ol the bone. No documentwas filed beforethe court} that he^{sustaineddisability. As such, tl.re evidence of PW'2 was not} correct^{with regard to assessnlent of disability''I'he Tribunal}

¶56

D. GRR-J !t.|cv,4 \n. t 626 of lli I I

¶57

further^{observedthat rvithout any properand reasonable cause,} pW.2 had assessed the disability to help the claimant.

¶58

I'his^{Court in A. Chalapathi'scase (2 supra) heldthat}

¶59

"ln nr1' considered opinion, nothing more is rcquired^{than the testimony} of^thequalified Orthopedic^{surgeon,r.r'hotreated} the^appellant. t() sho^' that^the appellant^{has sufferedthe} permanent disability to tlie extent of^20o/o. Unless^the Cou(^{Iindsthe evidenceofthedoctor} not worthy of^acceptance by^givingcogent reasons. the^{opinion ol a qualifieddoctor,that} too. of the doctor^{who conducted the surgery} and rreated^{the patient, cannot be discredited."}

¶60

-l his Court lurther observed that:

¶61

"As^{regards the contentionof the counsel forthe} appellant that the^evidence ol PW.^{2 regarding} the pe nanent disability is^{rejected without any} basis. I find force in^{the saidcontentionas well.} PW.2 is a^qualified Orthopedic^surgeon. tJndisputedly. he^{has treatedthe} appellant.^He has categorically^deposed that^{the appellanthas} sufl'ered^{pernianent disability to the extent of} 20oZ on^account of^shortening of^leg. Ho*'ever, by a strange^process of^{reasoning,ihe Tribunal} relected this evidence by stating^{that the} appcllant^{hasnol obtaineda certificatefrom the} nrerlical^board. The-fribunal^has not^{traced any} sratutory^{provisionunderwhich medical board is} constituted and obtaining of the^permanenl disability cerliticate from the medical board^is rnade obligatory for claimants^under the^Motor Vehicles Act. 1988."

¶62

16.^{'I-his Courr alsoaccepts the view taken in A}

¶63

Chala Pa^{th i's} CASC (2 supra), as PW.2, a qualified Orthopedic 4zl

¶64

I()

¶65

D,.CRR,J )tl.4cu-1No lo6of )0t I

¶66

Surgeon, who treated the claimant had given his evidence stating that the claimant suffered permanenr disability to an extent of l0 to 15% by giving cogent reasons stating that tl.re claimant would be having difficulty in terminal moverrenrs ol- knee joints and that he was unable to sit and squat. Hence, it is considered fit to accept the evidence of PW.2 in considering rhe permanent disability of the claimant as l5%o. As the claimant stated that he was a businessman, running a Kirana and General Stores, even in the absence of any reliable proof of income, the income of the claimant can be considered as Rs.6,500/- per month as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syed Sadiq's case ( I supra) wherein the income of a vegetable vendor is considercd as Rs.6,500/_ per month for the accident occurred in the year 200g. The Hon'ble Apex Court also considered the loss ol.luture prospects observing that:

¶67

14.... In our view, it will be naive to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self:employed or who is emploled on a fixed salary without provision {br annual increment, etc., would remain the sam€ throughout his lifc.

¶68

The rise in the cost of living alfects everyone across the board. {t does not make any distinction betwecn rich and pcxrr As a ntatter of

¶69

¶70

D. GRR-.1 Mlcitta No-l060I20t t

¶71

tact. the elfcct of rise in^{prices whichdirectly} impacts the cost of living^{is minimal on the rich} and maximum on^{those who are seli:employed} or rvho get fixed^{income/emoluments.They are} the worst affected^{people. 'lherefore, they put} ertra etlbrts to^{generate additionalincome} nccessary fbr sustaining^{theirlamilies.}

¶72

Although. the rvages/income^ofthose employed in unorganized sectors^{has not} registered a corresponding^{increaseandhasnot} kept pace with the increase in^{the salariesof the} (ior. ernment employees and those ernployed in private sectol's but it cannot be^{denied thal there} has been incremental enhancement^inthe incomc of' thosc who are sell-employed^and cven thosc engagcd on daily^{basis, monthly} basis or even seasonal basis.^{We can take} .judicial^{notice ol the lact that with a viervto} mect the challenges^posed by^{highcostol living,} the persons falling in the^{latter category} periodically increase the cost of their^{labour. In} this oontcxt. it nray be useful to^{give an example} of a tailor u'ho earns his livelihood^{by stitching} cloths. tf the cost of living^{increases and the} prices ol essentials go up, it is^{but natural for} hir.n to increase tlie cost of his labour.^{So willbe} the cases of ordinary skilled^{and unskilled} Iabour. like. barber. blacksmith,^{cobbler, mason} ctc-

¶73

I8.^{-l'hereflore,} we do not^{think that while} making the observations^{in the last three lines of} paragraph 24 of Sarla^{Verma'sjudgment.the} Court had intended to^{lay down an absolute rule} that there will be no addition^{in the incomeof a} person who is self-employed or^{who is paid} fixed wages. Rather, it^{would be reasonable to} say that a person who^{is self-employedor is} engaged on fired^{wageswill also get 30 per cent} increase in his total^{incomeovera period of time} and if he^{/ shebccomes victim of accident then} the same lormula^{deservesto be applied fbr} calculating^{thc...a.lBount} .ol^{compensation."}

¶74

¶75

Itt.(;AR,J rl1("rt,s ,\o t6:4 0f20t I

¶76

Therclore, considcring that rhc appellant/ claimant u,as sellemploved and u,as 24 1..ears ol age. we hold that he is entitled to 5070 increment in the luture prospect of inconre based upon thc principle laid down in lhe Sanrosh Der i r. National Insurance Conipany, i.imitcd."

¶77

Considering the age of the claimant as 33 years, which was not disputed, the multiplier applicable is^. 16, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporationa and the future prospects can bc taken as 40%o, as per the judgment of rhe Hon'ble Apex Ciourt in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.s. As such, the loss of income due to the permanent disahility sustained by the clainrant can be assessed as Rs.6,500/- + Rs.2.600/- (40% of Rs.6,500/-) x 12 x 16 x l51100^: Rs.2,62,080/-.^'Ihe loss ol'earnings during the period ol treatment can be calculated fbr a period of three months as Rs.6,500/- x 3^: Rs. 19,500/-.

¶78

As the evidence of PW.2 would disclosc rhar rhe clairnant incurred an amount ol Rs.27,000/- towards medical bills, i[ is considered fit to award the same. As the evidencc of trW.2

¶79

'(2oogt o scc tz r

¶80

5 :o n i roy scc oto

¶81

¶82

l)r CRR,J VaClla \o.la)4 of 20ll

¶83

also would disclose that the claimant required a further surgery for removal ol- inrplants, it is also considered fit to award an amount ol Rs. 15,000/- lorvards luture medical expenses as assessed by PW.2 The arnount ol Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is considered as inadequate in view of the evidence ol PWs. I and 2 that the said injury had also resulted in permanent disability resulting in shortening of his left leg by half an inch which brings a change in his phl,sical appearance and lowers his sell'confidence. As such, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.25,000/- under this head and Rs.10,000/- for loss of,amenities in life. As some ol the larnily members of the claimant might have attended him during the period ol his treatment and subsequently during the period he corrtlned to bed and during the period of his recovery by leaving their regular work, it-is consider fit to award an arnounl ol Rs.5,0001 under this head. As the Tribunal arvarded only an amoLlnt of Rs. 1,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment. the same is considered as meager and it is considered fit to award an amount olRs.5.000/- each under these heads.

¶84

t:t

¶85

Dr-CRR.J
rllr( \11\o l 6 oJ:01I

¶86

As such,^{the amountof compensation entitledby the}

¶87

appellant-claimant^{undervariousheads is as follows:}

¶88

l.Lossofincome^dueto pernlanentdisabilitl'' Rs.2	.62.080r-
2.[.ossol'canrings^during
theperiod oftrcatment Rs.	I9,500/-
3.Medicalexpenses Rs.	27.000/-
4.Future rnedical^expenses Rs.	15,000/-
5.Painandsullering Rs.	25.000r-
6.Lossofamenities^{in life} Rs.	10,000/-
7.Attendant^charges Rs	.5.000/-
8-[lxtranourishrnent Rs	.5.000/-
9.1'ransportation^toHosPital Rs	.5,000/-
Total Rs.	3.73,580/-

¶89

As this Court is^{having power to grant just and} reasonable compensation^{to lvhichthe appellant-clairnantis} entitled as per the^{judgrnentsof the Hon'ble Apex Court in} Nagappa v. Gurudayal^{Singh6and Ramla v' National Insurance} Company Limited',^{itis considered fitto enhance the} compensation amount^{fromRs.60,000/-awardedby the Tribunalto} Rs.3,73,580/-,^{which is considered asjustand reasonable'}

¶90

t (zoo;) z scc zz'l

¶91

' 1zo ro) z scc^to:

¶92

¶93

¶94

O.-CRR,J .VACttt.t t\o lnl6 oJ 2Al I

¶95

2l . In the result, the appeal IS allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.60,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.3,73,580/- (Rupees three Iaksh sevenry three rhousand five hundred and eighty only) with inrerest ar 7.5oh per annum on the enhanced amount. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amounr deposited, it any. On such deposit, the appellant - claimant is per.mitted to withdraw the entire arnount subject to deposit ol coun fee on the amount awarded more than the claim-

¶96

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶97

Sd/. P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Xlll Additionat Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civit Court at Hyderabad. 2. One CC ro SRt JAGATHPAL REDDV xnSt neoov, navoatelopict 3. One CC to SRt N.S. BHASKAR RAO, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies Pr/kam ,w

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2310112024

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1626 of 2011

¶108

1 ..,r?. , i;:'l'S
o)t11) $t Ir$ lul
-./! , *
[-r r,

ALLOWING THE MACMA

l2l ple,-l
u>

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶113

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶114

PRESENT

¶115

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶116

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:¹⁶²⁶ OF²⁰¹¹

¶117

Between:

¶118

T. Ravinder, S/o Balraj aged 35 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No.1-10-122i1^1, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad.

¶119

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶120

AND

¶121

1 . Anil Kumar, S/o Hanumanth Rao, aged major, Occ: Business R/o H.No.3-1^{1 4,} Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶122

Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by its Regional Manager, Snehalata Apartments, Opp Blue Moon Hotel, Begumpet,

¶123

...RESPONDENTS/RESPDTS

¶124

Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V.Act., against the Judgment and Decree dated 09-1'1-2010 passed in OP.NO.1'158 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad IFTC].

¶125

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 KasiReddy Jagathpal Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of SRI N.S. BHASKAR RAO, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶126

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶127

That this appeal be and hereby is allowed enhancing the compensation^from Rs.60,0001 (Sixty Thousand only) as awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.3,73,5801 (Rupees three lakhs seventy three thousand five hundred and^' eighty only) with interest at7.5o/o^per annum on the enhanced amount;

¶128

That the respondent No.2_ lnsurance Company be and hereby is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount deposited, if any;

¶129

3 That on such deposit, the apperant-craimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount sub.ject to deposit of court fee on the amount awarded more than claim;

¶130

That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall Stand confirmed in all other respects, and

¶131

That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶132

Sdi. P. C-H. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i/TRUE COPY//

¶133

¶134

SECTION OFFICER

¶135

L Il,:fB t|fltionar chier Judse, (Frc)' citv civir court at Hyderabad pr @^

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2310112024

DECREE

MACMA.No.1626 of 2011

¶142

ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶143

<br>U!

T. Ravinder v. Anil Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Ravinder v. Anil Kumar and Another

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

Ws. Rsr Infra-Gsrcc (Jv) Vs Sri Arun Kumar Jain, And 3 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Madhu Latha and 6 Others

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Bangaroju Somaiah Chary and 2 Ors.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Pulgam Chandrakala

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. Vs Putta Nagamani and Another

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs I.v.Ranga Rao and Another