Disposed

Shaik Saleem v. Sri Shaik Masthan and Another

Telangana HC5 Dec 2025MACMA/1440/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident appeal against a partial award of Rs.70,000 was settled before the Lok Adalat, with the insurer agreeing to pay Rs.80,000 in full and final settlement; the High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of that settlement.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed per Lok Adalat settlement: insurer to pay Rs.80,000 within six weeks after crediting deposits; refund of court fee; claimant may withdraw amount on deposit.

Shaik Saleem Vs Sri Shaik Masthan and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: '1440 OF 2016

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of l\il V.Act, against the Order and Decree daled 30-12-201 5 passed rn I\rlVOP.No. 148 of 2012 on the file of the court of the Charrman, Motor Accrdent Clainrs Tribunal cum Additional Drstrict Judge at Nizamabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shaik Saleem, S/o Shaik Abdullah, Age. 29 years, Occ Painter and Labour on contract basis, R/o H.No. 9-20-2318, Dairy Farrn, Sateeshnagar, Bodhan Road, N izamabad.

¶10

APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri Shaik Masthan, S/o. Ahmed, Owner of Auto Baaring No. AP.25. W. 9673 R/o. H.NO. 10-13-29912212, Dharmapuri Hills, Nizamabad.

¶13

Srrram General lnsurance Company Ltd.,, Rep. by rts Divisional lvlanager, Divisional Office, 10003-E-8, RIICO lndustrial Area, Sita Pura, Jarpur, Rajasthan-302 022.

¶14

(Vide Policy cover note no.829173 valid from 17.032011 to 16 03 2012)

¶15

RESPON DENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri S Surender Reddy

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: ---

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

t \

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STAT E^(] F TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAI:RISHNA REDDY

¶22

M.A.C.M.A.No.L44O of 20Lt

DATE: o5.12.2025

Between:

Shaik Saleem

.Appellant

AND

Shaik Masthani & another

¶29

Re spondents

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The appellant has filed this appeal chali, nging the Order and Decree dated 3O.12.2015 passed in O.P.N, .148 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-A,l litional District Judge, Nizamabad, whereby the learned Tribr nal allowed the petition filed by the claimant in part by awart ng Rs.7O,OOO/against the claim of Rs.2,OO,O00/- under Ser: ion 166(1)(a) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

¶32

During the pendency of the appea both parties expressed their willingness to settle the disput : amicably and addressed a letter to the Registrar (Judicial-I) High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, requesting t iat the case be referred to Lok Adalat for settlement. Accordin6J .. the case \ ras referred to Lok Adalat.

¶33

\ \

¶34

¶35

The Lok Adalat, after interacting with the parties, verihed their identities, and ascertained their free and voluntary consent has recorded a settlement between them. The Lok Adalat Award dated 13.O9.2025, along with the Memorandum of Compromise signed by the parties, has been placed before this Court.

¶36

The Award certihes that the compromise is lawful, voluntar5r, and free from coercion, undue influence, or mlsrepresentatron.

¶37

This Court has perused the Award and the terms of the settlement and finds no legal impediment to accept the same in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC

¶38

In view of the compromise recorded by the Lok Adalar, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellareous Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the settlement. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

AII pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶40

closed

¶41

SD/- M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To, The Chairman,^{Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cumAdditional District Judqe} ,i r.ri.r,.nrurl'(with^records) /

¶45

._r.gffirlq.ElQr/ _.,,_ig. .-. .-., ,/

¶46

One CC to Sri^S Surender^{Reddy,Advocate} [OPUC] 3. Turo CD Coptes

¶47

S,/I'SI

¶48

Enclosing copy of^{Lok Adalat award herewith dated1 3-09-202 i} 16t(

HIGH COURT

DATED:0511212025

\ \

JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1440 of 2016

¶53

--1.) r'r'l ' 'F
(
0 I i:B 2[26
C,o
{z
.<^
* L,: : '.

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE MACMA IN TERMS OF LOK ADALAT

¶55

(> c-p\s"A
S.u,

¶56

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMIvIITTEE

¶57

]

¶58

(HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD)

¶59

[U^{nderSection1 9 of the Legal ServicesAuthorities Act,1 9 8 7 (Cent rat Act} )] Date: 13-09-2025

¶60

Present:1. Hon'ble Justice G.Sri Devi,

¶61

(Forrner ,udge, Hon'ble High Court for the State of lelangana)

¶62

Chairman

¶63

Smt. Nandita Guha, Advocate,

¶64

Member

¶65

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1 44O of 2O1 6

¶66

(Before the Hon'ble High Court)

¶67

AGAINST

¶68

MVOP. No.148 of 2012

¶69

(On the fite of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum -Additional District Judge at Nizamabad)

¶70

BETWEEN:

¶71

Shaik Saleem, S/o. Shaik Abduttah,

¶72

Aged: 29 years, Occ: Painter and Labour on contract basisr R/o.i1.No,9-20-2318, Dairy Farm, Sateeslrnagar, Bodharr road, Nizamabad.

¶73

Appellant/Petitioner

¶74

5ERVtC€5
n
oO:$
tsx^"sxs
+I
+
lre Sta

¶75

AND

¶76

Sri ShaikMasthan, S/o. Ahmed,

¶77

Age: Major, Owner of of Auto bearing no.AP.25 W 9673, R/o.H.No. 10-1 3^-799 /22 /2, Dharmapuri Hitts, Nizamabad.

¶78

Shriram General lnsurance Company Limited Represented by its Divisonal Manager, Divisional Office, 10003-E-8, RIICO lndustrial Area, Sita Pura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302 022.

¶79

(Vide Poticy cover note no. 879173 vatid frorn 17 .03.2011 to 16.03.2017i.

¶80

...Respondents/Respondentr

¶81

CounseI for the Appetlant/C laimant : Sri M.Prakash Reddy, Advocater Sri S.Surender- Reddy, Advocate

¶82

Counset for Respondent No.2/

¶83

: Sri M.V.l,larsimha Rao, Advocate.

¶84

lnsurance Company

¶85

Representative of lnsurance Company

¶86

Sri Mohammed Babu, Manager,

¶87

This appeal having been referred for setttement before this Lok Adatat and after hearing the Learned CounseI for th3 parties and atso the parties, the^fottow'ing awarci is^passed:

¶88

- tionAwarded ompensa bytheTribunal CompensationAwarded (SetttementReached) intheLokAdalat. vic€s 1' C qJoo i I theSlaie	Rs.70,000/-⁽ AWARD Rupees seventy^thousand 1ty)withcosts^an @^{7.5y"pe(annumfrom thedateofi ingof thepetitionti} date of reatization. Thisisa@ 1r^{)etitionera89rieved byti} Award^{passedinMVOPNo.148of2012;'theMotorAccidentClaims} Tribuna[-cum'Additionat^{DistrictJudgez : Nizamabad'} SriMohammed^{Babu,ManagerfortheRespondentNo 2-lnsurance} Companyhas^{appearedbefore theLokI datat and representedthat} theAppettant/Petitioner/^{Ctaimanthas; ppearedbeforetheDistrict} LegatServicesAuthority,^Nizamabad. Itisreportedby^{theRespondentI'lo z'lnsuranceCompany tnat} duringthe^{pendencyofthisAppeal, theyhaveenteredintoa} setttementandin^{pursuanceofthe satr:,theAppettant/Petitioner} has agreedto^{receiveanamounto-Rs.80,000/-(RupeesEighty} thousandonty) towards^futtandfinal'etttement^apartfrom:he amount atready^{depositedandthelnsr--ance Companyhasagreed} topaythe^{sametowardsfuttandfinasett[ementoftheCtajm'} accoidingty,compromise^{isrecorded andtheAwardispassed} beforethe^LokAdatat. ln viewoftheabove^{saidsetttement,helnsurance Companyhas} agreedto^paythe^{abovesaidamoun:withina periodofsix(6)} weeksfrom thedateof^receiptof'^{opyofthisAward,after} deductingtheamount^{thatwasdepos1:d,ifany.lntheeventof} defauttordetayin^{making suchdepositthe Ctaimant/Appettantis} entitted toctaiminterest^{asawardedb'r:heTribunat.} C
Apportionmentof Compensation,if^an

-
tionAwarded
ompensa
bytheTribunal
CompensationAwarded
(SetttementReached)
intheLokAdalat.
vic€s
1'
C
qJoo
i
I
theSlaie

Rs.70,000/-⁽
AWARD
Rupees seventy^thousand
1ty)withcosts^an
@^{7.5y"pe(annumfrom thedateofi ingof thepetitionti}
date of reatization.
Thisisa@
1r^{)etitionera89rieved byti}
Award^{passedinMVOPNo.148of2012;'theMotorAccidentClaims}
Tribuna[-cum'Additionat^{DistrictJudgez : Nizamabad'}
SriMohammed^{Babu,ManagerfortheRespondentNo 2-lnsurance}
Companyhas^{appearedbefore theLokI datat and representedthat}
theAppettant/Petitioner/^{Ctaimanthas; ppearedbeforetheDistrict}
LegatServicesAuthority,^Nizamabad.
Itisreportedby^{theRespondentI'lo z'lnsuranceCompany tnat}
duringthe^{pendencyofthisAppeal, theyhaveenteredintoa}
setttementandin^{pursuanceofthe satr:,theAppettant/Petitioner}
has agreedto^{receiveanamounto-Rs.80,000/-(RupeesEighty}
thousandonty) towards^futtandfinal'etttement^apartfrom:he
amount atready^{depositedandthelnsr--ance Companyhasagreed}
topaythe^{sametowardsfuttandfinasett[ementoftheCtajm'}
accoidingty,compromise^{isrecorded andtheAwardispassed}
beforethe^LokAdatat.
ln viewoftheabove^{saidsetttement,helnsurance Companyhas}
agreedto^paythe^{abovesaidamoun:withina periodofsix(6)}
weeksfrom thedateof^receiptof'^{opyofthisAward,after}
deductingtheamount^{thatwasdepos1:d,ifany.lntheeventof}
defauttordetayin^{making suchdepositthe Ctaimant/Appettantis}
entitted toctaiminterest^{asawardedb'r:heTribunat.}
C

Apportionmentof
Compensation,if^an

¶89

Addition al Direction^(s )

¶90

The Appettant^/ Petitiorer/^{ctaimant is entitted to the refLrl of CourtFeepaid in} this case.

¶91

The amount atready^{deposited by the lnsuranceCompery, if any, shatt begiven} credit to.

¶92

3, Soon after deposit^{by thelnsurance Company, the Appettar t ' Petitioneris permittedto} withdraw the entire^amount.

¶93

ln token of consent^ror the^{above setttement and award, tl' parties and their counsel}

¶94

have signed this awardⁱⁿ our^presence.

¶95

ln terms of the conrprornise arrived^{at betlveenthe partiei thiscasestands disposed}

vN
(- Ir .1

IDEN'TIFICATION RIII'OIIT

¶100

A No.1440 of²⁰¹⁶ oP. No. 148 of 2012

¶101

Appellant (s)
I
S4

¶102

Respondcnt (s)
l
l
I
I
I
For Shrir G ene ln rar]ce co. Ltd I
Authorised SignatorY
l
l
l
i
l

¶103

Counsel for the Appellant (s) Counsel lbr Reipondent (s.1

¶104

CHAIRMAN/SECR]j'TAI{Y
DLSA
s ER
7t,'
(i L
HIGH COURT --.t
t LOK ADAI-AT N
oIa*
CIIAIRMAN t MEMBIR
Shlcoll
Prl. Dist. Judge& h irfa I
Dist legolS ervices Aulh w
N|ZAMABAD.

Shaik Saleem v. Sri Shaik Masthan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Saleem v. Sri Shaik Masthan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Angel Constructions and Builders Vs D. Nandishwar Goud and 17 others

The Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/S. Mesco Educational Institutions

Mohd.Aqueel Qureshi,Hyd Vs Govt.of Ap,Prl.Scy,Home,Hyd,and 9

Mohd.Yaseen, Vs The State of Talangana

Nethavath Goliya, Warangal Dist and Another Vs Banoth Lachya, Warangal Dist and 2 Others

Smt.Vazeer Bee, (died) per LRs - 2AND3 Vs The State of Talangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary