Dismissed

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

Telangana HC12 Aug 2024MACMA/2352/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Tribunal's order dismissing a compensation petition. The Court held that the Tribunal correctly distinguished the respondent's case from Supreme Court precedents due to lack of vehicle description in the initial FIR and held no infirmity existed in the Tribunal's findings.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2352 of 2013 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Mohd. Abdullah Munawar, Vs M/s. Sri Balaji Agencies — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2352 OF 2013 Between:

¶6

Mohd. Abdullah Munawar, S/o. tt/ohd. [Vlunawar Syed, R/o. 94-116132, Balreddy Nagar, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad.

¶7

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶8

AND

¶9

M/s. Sri Balaji Agencies, Rep., byAmit Shah, Transport Business R/o. 4-647411 , Koti, Hyderabad -500002.

¶10

2, The National lnsurance Company Limited, Rep,, by its Regional Manager, Divisional Office - I, Jhavari Mansion, Bank Street, Hyderabad - 500 001.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Appeal filed under Under section, 173 of tt/l.V.Act., against the Judgment and Decree dated 3l.05 2013 passed in OP.No.465/2009 on the file of the Court of the A/lotor Accident Civil Tribu nal-cum-1't Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- XV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶13

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 Srr A.V.K.S. Prasad, advocate for the appellant and of Sri S Bal Chand, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and of Sri A-Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶14

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

¶15

'1 That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed;

¶16

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

Sd/- T JAYASREE AR

//TRUE COPY//

'l . The Motor Accident Civil Tribunal-cum- 1'r Additional It4etropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- XV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶22

1. Two CD Copies

¶23

As/pr

¶24

¶25

+.*ii-.-;a-*_.-:--,--

¶26

/ I

¶27

HIGH COURT DATED: 1210812024

¶28

DECREE MACMA.N o.2352 ot 2013

¶29

eoF T6/
i.l
O
P
.s ?-
t\N I
I .: ) /,,
$ /
?
2/'

DISMISSED

[³²⁵¹ I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶35

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶36

PRESENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶38

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2352 OF 2013

¶39

Appeal filed under Under section, 173 of lvl.V.Act. , against the Judgment and Decree dated 3'1 .05.20'13 passed in OP.No. 46512009 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Civil Tribunal-cum-1't Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- XV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶40

Between:

¶41

Mohd. Abdullah Munawar, S/o. Mohd. Munawar Syed, R/o. 9-4-116132, Balreddy Nagar, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad.

¶42

...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

¶43

AND

¶44

'l . M/s. Sri Balaji Agencies, Rep., by Amit Shah, Transport Business R/o. 4-647411 , Koti, Hyderabad -500002.

¶45

The National lnsurance Company Limited, Rep., by its Regional Manager, Divisional Office - l, Jhavari Mansion, Bank Street, Hyderabad - 500 001.

¶46

...RESPONDENTS

¶47

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A V K S PRASAD

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI S BALCHAND

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶50

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶51

¶52

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶53

M.A.C.M.A No.2352 OF 2013

¶54

JUDMENT:

¶55

The Tribunal dismissed the petition fited by the appellant seeking gralt of compensation. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the present appeal is filed.

¶56

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-lnsurance Company and perused the record.

¶57

The' manner in which the accident had taken place and the liability is not in dispute.

¶58

Briefly, the case of the claimant/appellant who is the injured is that while he was going on a motorcycle along with his friend Syed Mazzamil Shah at 5:30p.m. on 28.03.2006, tJle offending vehicle which is a seven seater Auto driven in a rash and negligent manner with high speed hit them from behind. On account of said impact, both of them fell down and received mulliple fractures. Initially, the appellant was taken to Mahaveer hospital on the same day and on the next day, he was shifted to Apollo Hospitat.

¶59

¶60

Learned Tribunal Judge having considered the evidence put forth by ttre claimants found that :

¶61

the description of the vehicle which caused the accident was not stated in the complaint.

¶62

Driver of the offending vehicle . surrendered three days after the accident.

¶63

. 3. Though it was claimed that it was a seven seater Auto, in fact, the said crime vehicle bearing No.AP-O9-X-0610 was a goods Auto.

¶64

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the accident happened and it was clearly mentioned that it wds an unknown vehicle. The Driver of the said vehicle surrendered before the Police three days, thereafter. Accordingly, the charge sheet was hled against him^'and p.W.S who is the Investigating Officer also entered into the witness box and stated that the Driver of the vehicle bearing No.Ap-O9-X0610 caused the accident.

¶65

Learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Anita Sharma And Others vs. New Inida Assurance Company Limited And Anotherr and Janabai & Ors vs. M/s.ICICI Lambord fnsurance Company Limitedz and argued that delay in identifuing the Driver, is of no

¶66

'^{(2021)1 scc171}

¶67

'/^{2022LawSuit(SC) 635}

, )

I I

-3,i

consequence. The Hon''lcle Supreme^{Court inboth the} judgments stated supra has granted compensation.

¶73

On the other hand, learned^{counselappearingfor} Insurance Company would submit that^{reasons are given in} detail as to why compensation^{was refused. Initially,there was} no description of the vehicle which^{was involved in the accident} as per F.l.R. However, three days^{thereafter,the Driver} surrendered and the said vehicle^{was identifred. In fact, though} initially it was claimed that it was a seven^{seater Auto meantfor} passengers, later it turned out to be^goodsAuto.

¶74

g. The fact remains that as on the date of^{hling the} complaint, it was only mentioned by^{the pillion rider namely} Syed Muzzamil Shah, that it^was an^{unknown vehicle.The} description of the vehicle was also not^{given. The accident} happened at 5:30 p.m. in the broad^day light.^{It is not that} both, the complaint and the claimant became^{unconscious after} the vehicle had hit them or they were^not in^{their senses when} the accident happened and they could not observe^{the vehicle.}

¶75

In the^judgment relied on by the learned^{counselfor the} appellant in Janabai's case, it was mentioned^{in the FIR that} an unknown car Driver had caused the accident.^{In the present}

¶76

¶77

case, as already stated, description of the vehicle was not given. In Anita Sharma's ccse, the Hon'ble Supreme Qourt was dealing with fault of the Driver of the offending vehicle. The judgments relied on by learned counsel are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Even Ex.X.2/injury certificate shows that the claimant was admitted on 28.03.2O06 in Apollo hospital, which is factualiy incorrect. Even according to the claimant he was admitted in Mahaveer Hospital on 28.03.2006 and on the next day i.e., on 29.03.2006, he was admitted in Apollo Hospital. The said fact is stated by the Doctor-Krishna Reddy, who was examined from Apollo Hospital. It appears from the facts of the present case that help of the owner of the Auto/Driver was taken to claim compensation.

¶78

1 1 . I do not find any infirmity in the hndings of the learned Tribunal to set aside order of dismissa-l. Accordingly, the Appeal

¶79

is dismissed.

¶80

Sd/. T JAYASREE AS STANT REGISTRAR

¶81

//TRUE COPY//

¶82

SECTION OFFICER

¶83

To 1 . The tr4otor Accident Civil^{Tribunal-cum-'l"tAdditiohalNiletropolitanSessions} Judge-cum- XV Additional^{Chief Judge,City Civil Court, Hyderabad} (with Records if any)

¶84

One CC to SRl. A V^{K S PRASAD, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶85

One CC to SRl. S BALCHAND,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶86

One CC to SRl. A RAIVIAKRISHNA^{REDDY,Advocate} IoPUC]

¶87

5- Two CD Copies As/or vn

¶88

t.r

¶89

"^{HIGH COURT} DATED: 1210812024

¶90

JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.2352 of

¶91

oFT
-1
q
i Lr-o -'\ I
3 .,ei
$'
a)
.-1
', t, il-l x -t2

¶92

DISMISSED

¶93

x6
&

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Maloth Mgji Vs Kotesh Gandhi

Jalla Saidulu and 2 Others Vs Thumoz Hari Prasad and Another

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