Allowed

Daravath Papu v. G. Devender REddy

Telangana HC3 Sept 2024MACMA/436/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The High Court relied on a recent Civil Revision Petition to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and decree, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration due to subsequent evidence regarding the authenticity of a medical certificate issued by a doctor arrested by the CBI.

What did the court decide?

Order and decree dated 17.08.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.53 of 2006 set aside; matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration; no costs.

Daravath Papu Vs G. Devender REddy — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

MOTOR ACCID ENT CIVIL MISC ELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 436 0F 2008 ' Appear Under section 173 of Motor vehicres Act against the Judgment and decree in M.V.o.P.No.53 of 2006 dated 1r8r2o07 on the fire of the court of the chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-vr Additionar District Judge (ilr FTc), Warangal at Mahabubabad

¶6

Between:

¶7

Daravath Papu, S/o. Lachya Agriculture and Lavour R/o. Gundenga Village, Gudur Mandal, Warangal Diatrict.-

¶8

AND

¶9

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶10

1 G Devender REddy, c/o. J. Ravi, Auto owner R/o. Ramavaram Vi age,

¶11

,^{Narsampet Mandal, WarangalDistrict.}

¶12

The New lndia Assurance_Company Limited, Represented by its ' Branch Manager, 141305, post Office Road, Gudivada.

¶13

The New lndia Assurance C-ompany Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Punnamchander Complei, Chowrastha, Hanamkonda, Wrirng;1. (Respondent No.1 is not necessary party)

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A PRABHAKAR RAO

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO

¶17

The Court delivered the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶19

M.A.C.M.A No.436 of 2OO8

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the order and decree dated 17.0a.2OO7 in M.V.O.P.No.53 of 2006 on the file the Chairman, Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal-Cum-Vl Additional District Judge (III FTC) ar Warangal at Mahabubabad.

¶22

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶23

Mr.Kota Subba Rao, Iearned counsel appearing for the respondent/lnsurance Company submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by 1n the orders of this Court, dated 03.O2.2}ll, C.R.P.No.31 16 of 2OO9.

¶24

Relevant portion of the order in the afore-stated

¶25

C.R.P reads as under:

¶26

"3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/lnsurance Company that the medical certificate produced by the claimant is a bogus one and the Doctor, who allegedly issued that certificate, was arresed by the officials of

MACMA,436-

Central^{Bureau of Investigationon the allegations} of giving^{false certificates' and that these are the} subsequent^{developments, which are not within} the knowledge^{of the insurance company' and} therefore,^{he prays to remandthe matter to the} Tribunal^{giving opportunityto the petitionersto} lead evidence.^{Accordingto the lea'rned counsel for} the petitioners,^{the Doctor is involvedin issuing} bogus certificates^{and gase in Crime No'RC22A-} O7-CBI,^{Hyderabad for the offences punishable} under Sections^{l2OB and 42O ofIPC was} registered^{against him' In view of the changed} circumstances,^{the impugned order can be set} aside the^{matter can be remanded to the trial} Court to^{permitthe petitioner to lead evidence on} that asPect.

¶31

Accordingly,^{the impugned order is set aside} and the matter^{is remanded to the Tribunal'The} .^{tofile the relevant} petitioners^{are atliberty} documents^{into the Tribunal in the light of these} subsequent^{developments'Thereafter'the} Tribunal^{shall dispose of the Original Petition in} accordance^{with law after giving opportunityto} both the Parties'

¶32

The Civil^{Revision Petition is'} accordinglY, allowed.^{No costs"'}

KS, J MACMA_436_2008

In view of the submissions and for the reasons

¶38

alike as were mentioned in the earlier orders of this

¶39

Court in the afore-stated C.R.P., the M.A.C.M.A. is

¶40

a-llowed setting aside the order and decree dated

¶41

17.O8.20O7 in M.V.O.P.No.53 of 2006^passed by^the Tribunal and remanding the matter to^{the Tribunal}

¶42

for fresh consideration. No costs.

¶43

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶44

closed. No order as to costs.

¶45

//TRUE^COPY//

¶46

SD/. T. TIRUMALA^DEVI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ,(.)

¶47

SECTION^OFFICER

¶48

To, 1. The j,Ig""ii, Chairman ii6r *qr^Motor e^{Accident Claims Trib-unal:Yrn:yl Additional} [fla$ffi!:,Tto'r',]8i""'n records)^District

¶49

2.3, il: onelcc to # i" ini sRl.^{xorn A PRABHAIsuBBARAoAdvocateloPuc]} Two CD^CoPies

¶50

Note:^{(Enclosing the copy of orderin Cr'P'No3116/2OOg dt 3 2 2011 along} with this^order)

i.$

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/09/2024

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.436 of 2008

rlc ir lrlO
.iL Q^
I ''I
3 --') ts Ntlti 2il4 C
f
t)Es paj (l'.i

ALLOWED

v
"e
X.s

THE H CIVIL R

IJUSTICE K.C.BHANU ITION No. 31 16 of 2009

¶63

ORDER:

¶64

This Ci Petition is filed challenging the order dated 19 filotor Vehicle Original Petition No.530 of 2006 file of the Chairman, [\ilotor Accident Claims Tri um.Vl Additional District Judge (lll-F.T.C.), Waran(jal ahaboobabad, whereunder and whereby the first respondenVclaimant was awarded compensation of Rs.3,500/..with interest and costs, Ior the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 23.10.2005 in the outskirts oI Oorugonda village of Warangal district,

¶65

Heard.

¶66

lt is the contention of the learned counsel tor the petitioners/ insurance company that the medical certificate produced by the claimant is a bogus one and the Doctor, who allegedly issued that certificate, was arrested by the officials of Central Bureau of lnvestigation on the allegations of^giving false certi{icates, and that these are the subsequent developrnents, which are not within the knowledge of the insurance company, and therefore, he prays to remand the matter to the Tribunal giving oppor.tunity to the^petitioners to lead evidence. According to the learned counsel for the^petitioners, the Doctor is involved in issuing bogus certificates and case in crime no.RC 22A-07-CBl, H;rderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 1208 and 420 IPC raras registered against him. ln view of the changed circumstances., the irnpugned order can be set aside the matter can be remanded to the trial Coufi to permit the

¶67

--t---

¶68

petitioners to lead evide !I I I 4, Accordingly, th Sd,t aside and the matter is remanded hei petitioners are at liberty to file t nts into the Tribunal in the light of t evelopme n ts. Thereafter, the Trib una f the Original Petition in accordance g opportunity to both the parties. 5 The Civil Revision jss,'. , accorolng Y a owed No coSts. (K.C.Bhanu, J.)

¶69

3.2.2011 DRK THE HON'BLE SRI iCE K.C.BHANU

h l1 'i

i1 i

a!'

.i*

Daravath Papu v. G. Devender REddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daravath Papu v. G. Devender REddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dandu Kista Reddy , Krishna Reddy Vs G. Prabhu Lingam

S.Vijayasri Vs D.Srinivasa Roa and 2 Others

M/S Charminar Bottling Co.Pvt.Ltd., Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Somaiah Vs P.Bhaskar Rao

K.Koteshwar Rao, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P., High Court of a.P, Hyd and Anr.

B. Santhosh, Nanded District Vs Ottem Srinivas and Anr, Nizamabad