Dismissed

The New India Assurance Company Limited, v. Burugula Venkateshwar Reddy

Telangana HC24 Jan 2024MACMA/2875/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2875 of 2012 disposed of by the High Court of Telangana when the appellant insurance company filed a representation withdrawing the appeal via the authorized representative during proceedings at the High Court Legal Services Committee Lok Adalat, confirming the lower Tribunal's award.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn; confirming the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Insurance Company directed to deposit unpaid amount within one month.

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Burugula… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH^{DAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

MOTOR ACCIOENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL^{NO:2875OF 2012}

¶7

. Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.846 of 2006 daled^{O9112D011on the file of the Court of the Chairman} Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional^{District Judge,(FTC), Khammam.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

The New lndia Assurance Company^{Limited, Rep.by its BranchManager,} Gudivada, Krishna District.

¶10

...APPELLANTTRESPONDENT No.2

¶11

AND

¶12

Burugula Venkateshwar Reddy, S/o. Chinnappa^{Reddy, Occ Agriculture} Coolie, resident of Buchireddypalem Village, Yerrupalem^{Mandal, Khammam} District

¶13

Burugula Sreenivasa Reddy, S/o.^{VenkateshwarReddy, Occ Agriculture} Coolie, residents of Buchireddypalem Village, Yerrupalem^{Mandal, Khammam} District.

¶14

Burugula Nagi Reddy, S/o. Venkateshwar^{Reddy, Occ.Agriculture Coolie} resident of Buchireddypalem Village, Yerrupalem Mandal,^{Khammam District}

¶15

Vemireddy Padmaja, Wo. Nagi Reddy,^{D/o.Venkateshwar Reddy, Occ.House} Hold Ri/o.Banigandlapadu Village, Yemrpalem^{Mandal, KhammamDistrict.}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS I to 4/CLAIM PETITIONERS

¶17

S. Krishna Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy,^{aged Major, Occ.Owner of T and T AP} 16 AB 971 1 and9712 R/o.Chowtapalli^{(V), Thiruvur Mandal,Krishna District-}

¶18

...RESPONDENT No.5/ RESPONDENT^No.1

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. KATTA LAXMI PRASAD

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRl.^{KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO}

¶21

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE^{DIT"JUSTICEG. RADHA RANI}

¶23

M.A.C.M.A.No.^{2875 of2012}

¶24

JU DGMENT:

¶25

This appeal^{is filed by rhe appellant} -^{Insurance Co:npany aggrieved by} the award^{and decreedated 09'12'201I passed in Cr'P'No'846of 2006 by the} Nttotol Accident^{Ctaims Tribunal (for short "I'IACI-') - cum -- tV A<iditional} District Judge^{(FTC), Khammam}

¶26

The matter^{was referred to Lok AdalatpursuaLlt 1t-, the letteldated} Og.ll.2023^{addressedby the Secretary' High Cou( Legai SetricesCotnmittee'} Hyderabad.^{An award rvas passedby the I-ok Adalirt on 3O't'2'2023 and as per} the saicl^{award, the learned counselfor the appetlrrrrta5't'ccdto witlrci;:rv the} appc'al.

¶27

3-flence,theappealisclisposedofintermsoftheAr'varcloawd3A'i22021 passed by the^{Lok Adalat' No order as to costs'}

¶28

Miscellaneous^aPP lications^{pending, if any,shall standclosed'}

¶29

-T. J REE ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR < ,.' A/ ,TTRUE COPY'/

¶30

SECTION OFFICER

¶31

To,

¶32

l.TheChairmanMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cumJVAdditionalDistrict Judge,^{(FTC)' Khammam'}

¶33

z. 6-n!"iji to tnt.^{xnrrnLAxMIPRASAD Advocate [oPU-c]} - i. 6;; cc^{io snr. KADARU PRABHAKARRAO Advocate [OPUC]}

¶34

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶35

(enclosed Award^{copy dl 3Ol 1212023)}

- Asfak \P"-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410112024

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2875 of 2012

¶41

-(*{E S }4 I6.
q
t"
) 1E l,pn m .,,
.\C)
r!
-o flr{ I brlYo

DISPOSED OFF

9X^

I
i

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT HIGH COURT LEGAL SERYICES COMIvIITTEE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERAEAD.

¶46

/
.i' .\J)
4

¶47

lunder^{Sectionl9 of the legol Sewlces AuthoritiesAct,1987(CentrolAcl)t} Date:30-12-2023

¶48

,:,il::ll :^-.-r'

¶49

Present: 1. Hon'ble Justace Sri J.Sreenivas Rao, -r*iE: - ... (Judge Hlgh Court for the State of Telangana) Chairman 2. Sri N.Parameswar Reddy, Advocate, Member '-a'! 3. Sri Srinivasa Srikanth, Advocate,Sri Srinivasa Srikanth, Advocate,Srinivasa Srikanth, Advocate,Srikanth, Advocate, ,@.'

¶50

SERV
Jt
oo
tnt
-t
he Stat. d

¶51

Sri Srinivasa Srikanth, Advocate,Sri Srinivasa Srikanth, Advocate,Srinivasa Srikanth, Advocate,Srikanth, Advocate,
Member

¶52

[lACl{A. No. 28 7 5 of 201 2

¶53

,lnLi.2-. ...

¶54

(Before the Hon'ble High Court) AGAINST

¶55

M.A.T.O.P.No.846 of 20O6

¶56

(On the fite of the Motor Accidents Ctaims Tribuna[ lV Addt. District Judge ::^(FTC), Khammam)

¶57

Between:

¶58

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by it's Branch Manager, Gudivada, Krishna District.

¶59

#'
#i'

¶60

....Appettant/ Respondent No.2

¶61

. AND

¶62

Buruguta Verikateshwar Reddy S/o. Chinnappa^Reddy, aged about 60^years, Occ: Agriculture^Coolie,

¶63

Buruguta Sreenivasa Reddy S/o..Venkateshwar Reddy,
aged about 4O years, Occ: Agricutture Cootie, .
3. Buruguta Nagi Reddy S/o. Venkateshwar Reddy,
aged about 30 years, Occ-: Agriculture Coalie, ]

¶64

Att are residents of Buchireddypatem Vittage, .
Yerrupalem lvlandat, Khammam-District. :, .
4. Vemiieddy Padmaja W/o., Nagi Reddy, D/o. Venkateshw-ar Reddy,
aged 38 years, Occ: House Hotd
n7o. aaniganitapadu Vittage, Yerrupatem Manda[,
Khammam District.

¶65

..Respondents 1 to 4/
...Claim Petitioners.

¶66

S.Krishna Reddy S/o. Veera^Reddy, aged Major, Occ. Owner of T^{& T AP 16 AB 9711&.9712} R/o. Chowtapatti^(V), Thiruvur^il\andat, Krishna District.

¶67

...Respondent No.5/ ...Respondent No.1^.

t-7^-.t-.t1a4t

-.4

AWARD

1 . This is an appeal filed by the Appetl.ant/ lnsurance Company chattenging^the order dated 09-12-2011 passed in lv1ATOP.No.846 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Ctaims Tribunal. lV:Addt. District Judge^(FTC), Khammam.

¶73

Smt. A.Gayathri, Manager - The Authorized representative of Appettant/ lnsurance Company, has appeared and represented that the lnsurance Company decideU not to pursue the present appeat and'therefore they are wi[hdrawing the appeat. ' .

¶74

The said representation is ;ecorded and the appeat is dismissed aiwliilrawn, confirming the^{judgment,'and} decree of the Court/Tribuna[ beLow. The amount, if any, remaining unpaid to the c[aimant(s) shatt be deposited by the lnsurance Company within.one month from the date of receipt of the award,

¶75

On such deposit, the Respondent/Ctaimant(s) is/are permitted to withdraw his/her/their respective^.amount/s as per the^'award passed by the Tribunat/tvlACT

¶76

ln case, the parties subsequentty come to know about fiting of cross appeat/cross objection, they are given [iberty to seek recat[ of this t'

¶77

Order/Award.

¶78

Court fee paid on this appeal shatt be refunded.

¶79

No costs.

¶80

r-or _ =c,i8S.FElrqrdF{d;rrfr frfr2eI he New tndia .o . l.,0
ffijru*
E&{aqrBdcl8ffii&hffftr
its'p'etP#?ifr SIEBAI[?I1[J. 2
lnsurance Com an
n,P--,atb- l.Jt
CHAIRMAN MEMBER MEMBER.
^w
.9 GAL
- ittee)
+
o^
'@..e,-

The New India Assurance Company Limited, v. Burugula Venkateshwar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Limited, v. Burugula Venkateshwar Reddy

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

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

Boora Prabhakar Vs Panthangi Dashratha

Etukuri Samba Siva Rao, Khammam Vs M. Harsavardhana and Anr, Khammam

The New India Assurance Comnpany Limited, Mumbai Vs Billa Devakka and 8 Others

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Baba Sharaduddin , Sharfuddin and Another

Chinnala Chandraiah Vs Chinnala Kistaiah