The High Court · 2025

Petitaon under Section 151 C.p.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may oe pleased to vacate the interim stay granted by order Dated. 15/d9/2020 in l.n.ruo 3 ol 2020 in M A C M A No 410 of 2OZO. lA NO: 3 OF 2020 Petition under Section 'r51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ine uign court may oe preaseJio Stay^_all passed in MVO p .No.8712017 dated. 04.10 2019 on the fiie of MAC Tribunal cum principal Distiict Judge, Mahabubnagar, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A. proceedings in pursuance of the -fulther -award CROSS OBJECTION No.40 0F 2021 Between Saritha, Wio Late Raghu, aged 24 years, Occ: household. Aravind. D/o. Late Raohu aged 5 years. Minor. Being represented by his natural mother. 1'' Resfionden"t Hereii-- - 2 3 lL:.!!yr, D/o Late Raghu.. aged 4'years, Minor, Being represented by his natural mother, 1"' Respondent Herein A1_"r_"P:. M".*iprf Viilage, Athmakur Mandat, presenfly residing Housing Board, Colony, Mahabubnagar. Telangana. CROSS OBJECTORS/RESPONDENTS 1 ro 3 AND 1 2 M/s. New lndia Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Manager, Branch Office, Opp. Modern High Schoo, Mahabubnagar, Telangana. ..RESPONOENT/APPELLANT M/s. M. R. K. R. constructions and industries pvt. Ltd., Rep. by RamaKrishna Ep9{y, Srlo of the tripper bearing No Ap 04 y B2bo H N6 e_z-isatliDtn, Plot No.7, Aurora colony, road no.3, Banjarahills, Hyderabad. (Respondent No.2 is oniy a proforma party. No notice is necessary to him in this petition) ...RESPONOENT/RESPONDENT No.4 Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA and Respondent No.1 in X-Objection : Sri. Kota Sameer Kumar Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 in MACMA And Cross Objectors in X-Objection : Sri K Venkatesh Gupta Counsel for the Respondent No.4 in MACMA And respondent No.2 in X-Objection The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT : ---- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.41O of 2O2O & Cross Obiection No.4O of 2O2t COMMON JUDGME NT: M.A.C.M.A.No.41O of 2O2O is filed by the New India Assurance company Limited and cross objection No.4o of 2o21 is fired by the Claimants being aggrievc,ci :rnd unsatis{led against the Award and decree passed bv the Motor Acr-'icrcrrs claims Tribunal cum- principar District Judge, Mahabubr-ragar, (hcreinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') M.V.O.P.No.87 of 20 17, darc<t 04.1O.2otg. 2 For the sake or c..r'crric,cc, the parties wrlr be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed belbre the learned Tribunal. 3 Ileard Sri K.Venkqtesh Gupta, learned counsel lor the Claimants and Srt Kota Scmeer Kumar, Iearned counsel for respondent Insurance Compang anrl Sri Repakula Nageswar Rao for Respondent No. 2. Peruscd thc entire m;rterial on record 4' The brief facts of th. r:.sc are Lhat the craimants filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor vehicres Act, 19gg (in short referred to as rhe M V'Act) seeking conrpcnsation of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the death of the husbarrd of claimant No. r er.rcr father of claimants No. 2 and 3 for the ' n"r,, M.A.C.M.A.N1.41O oJ 2O2O & Ctoss Obiection No tto ol2o21 death caused in the accident. On 13.07.2012, the deceased who was ' working as tipper driver on tipper bearing registration No.AP-04-Y-82 100 under the employment of respondent No. I and when the Raghu (herein after referred as deceased) went to Jurala Gence and was proceeding towards the working place to dump the loaded material and while discharging his duties, the tipper turned turtle from a height of 100 feet, as a result of which, the material and boulders fell on the body of the deceased and he sustained head injury due to which he died on the spot. "

5. The Police have registered thc case against the driver of the said crime vehicle vide crime No.49 0f 2012 Ulnder sections 304-4 and 337 0f Ipc. Since the deceased himself the driver as such, the action was abated and the crime was closed.

6. The case of the claimants is that the deceased died due to the accident and the said vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company/ respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1 being the owner of the vehicle, and the Insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident. Respondent No. 1 being the owner and Respondent No' 2 being the insurer are liable to pay the compensation claimed by the claimants. As such, claimants have claimed compensation of Rs'15,O0,000/- from the respondents for the death of the deceased. NNR,I M.A.C.M.A.No.410 of 2020 & Cross Obiection No.4O oJ 2021 7 . The claimants contended that the deceased was hale ald healthy and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month beside he used to get Rs.150/- per day as bhatta by u'orking as a driver on the tipper lorry and due to the deatl'r of the deceased in tl'rc accident, the claimants have sustained loss of clependcncv, as thev rvere depended on the income of the deceased. At the time of thc accident.

8. Before the learnecl Tribunal, the Respondent No. I filed counter- affidavit denying thc averments made in the petition and further contended that the said accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased himself and further denied as to the age, occupation, income of ttre deceascd and further contended that the said vehicle being duly insurc,d u.ith the Respondent No.2 and the policy being subsisting q,hich covers thc risk of the driver the accidents during the course ol emplol'ment, if ar all the claimants are entitled to any compensation it is the respondent No.2 who is liable to pay the compensation and the respondent No.1 is not tiable to pay the compensation and lurther averred that claimants have already received Rs.5,00,000/ from respondenr No.1 rvith an understanding that the claimants i'il1 return the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in the event of receipt of the compensation from respondent No.2 insurance company. NNR,J M-A.C.M.A.N}.A10 ol2O2O & Cross Obiection No'40 o12027 g. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company frled a counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the petition and further contended that though the said vehicle was insured with respondent No'2' but it is subject to the terms and the conditions and that respondent No' 1 has handed over the vehicle to the driver who is not holding aly valid driving licence and that respondent No'2 is not liable to pay the compensation if any awarded.

10. Respondent No'2 further averred that the accident occurred due to the self negligence of the deceased himself as the claim under section 166 of M.V.Act is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the petition' 1 1 . Basing on the pleadings of the both the parties' the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: "1. Whether the accident occurred' on 13 07'2O12 at obout 05'3O to O6.0O hours, ot CAf'lCO Jurola in Jurata uillage of Atmakur ma1(a.l' Mahobubnago, ditri"t resulted in the deoth of the deceas?q ]1t?. AP-)4-Y iignu aeini the iiue' of the tipper ??":"5 registr-ation .No SZ:OO due ti the iniuies iustained bg him in the soid occident? 2. Whether the respondents ore liable to^paA the compensotion to the p"ritionn.. and, il io, uhat amount and from uthom? 3. whether the claim of lhe 9etitj9ryf- f eic-es:iyg- aryd 9x9rbitant? 4. Whether the tipper inuolued in the occident u(ts not hauing a road wort h g con d ition") S.Whether the deceosed' had no uolid diuing ticence anti ulether the "ar".i",.a himself uLas negligent therebA contibuting the occident? '* 5 NNR"J M.A.C.M.A.No.410 ol2020 & Crost Objection iro.4o ol 2O21

6. Wlether the fir:;t respondent paid som<: compensation to the petitioners after the occident?

7. To uhat reliefr"

12. In support of the <::asc of the claimants, the claimant No. I examined herself as P.W-1 and also examined P.W 2 & P.W 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A4. On behalf of the Respondents, the Respondents examined R.W 1 to R.W 3 and got exhibired Ex.Bi to 84 & Ex.Xl were marked.

13. The learned Tribunal, after hearing both the counsels and aJter considering the entire material on record held that the issue Nos. 1 and 2 \\rere ans\\rered in favour of lhe claimants and against the respondents and stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. Issue Nos.3 to 6 u,ere ansnered in favour of the claimants on thc ground that on the basis of not having license the respondent insurance c,rmpany cannot disown the liability and claim and further invoked the principle of "Pay and Rccovery" and directed the Insurance company to i.itially pay and then recover from the owner of the vehicle and au,arded an amount ol Rs. 1 l,2S,OOO l- with interest there on (,1 9oh per annum apprlying the guidelines taid down in Sarlcr Vermo \ " nn^'' M.A-C-M.A.No.47O oJ 2O2O & Cross Obiection No 40 ol2027 1 and Nortion al lnsuro:nce Coml'ang Vs. Delhi TransPort CorPoration Limited Vs. Pranrtg Sethi2 and also granted compensation under other

14. Being aggrieved and unsatislied by the Award and Decree passed by the learned Tribunal, the Appellant/respondent No'2/Insurance Company hled MACMA No'41O of 2O2O and claimant filed Cross Objection No.4O of 2O2L filed by the claimants' 15. karned counsel for the appellant/ respondent No'2 contended that the trial Court awarded the compensation without proper calculation and computed the quantum on imaginary grounds' The Tribunal failed to observe that the PW' 1 clearly admitted that the respondent No' 1 herein' the owner of the crime vehicie paid an amount of Rs'4'00'000/- to the claimants after the accident' but thc Tribunal did not inclined to deduct the same without any reason' 16. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No'2 further contended that the learned Tribunal did not observe that the deceased himself driven a Tipper Lorry Bearing AP-O4-Y-8200 in a rash and ' (2oo9 AcJ 1298) ' (aln 2ot7 sc 575?r 7 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.410 o12020 & Cross Objection No.4O oJ 2027 negligent manner and caused the accident, no other vehicle is involved in the accident ancl the claim u,as made under Section 166(1)(c) of M.V.Act and the deceased u,as uorking as a Tipper driver under M/s.MRKR Company, GENCO Jur:r1a and there is a reiationship of employer and employee. hence, the compensation granted under Section 166 of the M.v. Act is not maintainable but the learned rribunal ought to have computed the compensation under tr.c.Act, 1923 since the accident was caused due to the fault of deceased himself. Respondent No. I and deceased being in the relationship ol employer and employee at the time of the accident and prayed this court to allorv the main appeal and dismiss the cross appeal.

17. Per contra, Learned counsel for the craimants contended that the deceased u'as hale and healthy and *.as agecl about 26 years as on the date of the accident and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and Rs. 150/ - per day as 'Batta', however the Tribunar without considering the actual earning of the dcceascd has taken Rs.5,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased and the learned Tribunal awarded meagre compensation under the head of 'funeral expenses' arrd .loss of estate, and 'consortium'. The iearned rribunar has not added 50% of the amount towards future prospects of the deceased in view of the rising \ ./. 8 NNR,J M.A-C-M-A-No.410 of 2020 & Cross Obiection No.40 oJ 2027 value and inflation in the market and prayed this Court to enhance the compensation granted by the Tribunal.

18. Having heard the learned counsel for the claimants and respondent No.2/Insurance Company and having perused the entire material placed on record, the following points which arose for consideration: 1 "Wlether the learned Tribunal hns commttted anA error in passing the said Auard and Decree?

2. Whether the Insurance Compang is liable to paA the compensation to the claimants as that it is being a self accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased/ driuer himself ?

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to file ond maintain the claim und.er section 166 of the MV Act t.e. under fault liabilitg pinciple and u-thether the tribunaL is empoutered to adjudicate the claim and competent to auord th.e compensation and

4. If so, Whether th.e claimants are entitled for ang enhancement as praged for? If so,

5. To tohot relief and to what extent?"

19. Admittedly, in the present case, the deceased was working as the driver of Crime Vehicle and it is not in dispute that the deceased died while he was under the course of employment under 1"t respondent company while taking the material to unload the waste material. During the said work period the accident occurred, no doubt the deceased was under the course of employment. 9 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.47O ol 2020 & Cross Objection tto.4O ol 2021

20. The laq, being settled that even in a case Workmen Compensation Act though the claim.c.n be made under Section 166 of the MV Act, the compensation can be .u'arded by the Motor vehicles claims Tribunal based on the workmen compensation act calculation, though the law does not bar the claim ants from making a claim before the workmen compensation and the claimants are at liberty to a file claim petition before commissioner for workmen compensation. In the judgment of the then Higl.r Court of Judicature of Hyderabad in M.A.C.M.A No.87 7 of 2oo9 (Bajaz Allianz Insurance co. Ltd. vs Bharatamma and others) at paragraph No.7 held as belon,: "POINT Nos. 1 and 2: Accident, inuoluement of Lorry bearing No. KA 34 5528 attd deotlt of deceased being tts d_iuer are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased uto,s working as cleaner tn the ill-fated lorrry tDho droue the long at the time of accirient and cctused the accident due to L'is or.tn faurt. It is a further admitteci fact that he hctd tut diuintl licent-t,. In the Light oJ' these Jacts, the cntcial question is tuhether his L.Rs. can cLaim compensation. a) Sofaras law on the point inuolued is no more res integra. This Court in on unreported decision in M.posham u. S.Kalauathi[1] has deaLt with the is.sue ort etigibilttg o/ I.Rs. to claim compensation Luhen the accident uas occurred due to fau.lt of deceased diuer himself. In that case. the facts Luere thot tlte d.eceasecr was diuing the lorg from Hgderabad to Mand.amari and. on the uag he lost controL ouer the uehtcle and hit the roadstd.e tree resultitq in his 10 NNR,! M.A.C.M.A.No.410 ol2020 & Crcss Objection No.4Ool2021 instantaneous death. His L.Rs. fiLed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act against the owner and insurer of the long. Otltner remained ex-parte and lnsurattce Compang repudiated its liabilitg moinlg on the plea that accident tuos <tccured due b the foult of deceosed himself and further he had no uoLid licence. It also took a plea that claimants ought to haue filed cLaim petition before the Workmen's Tribunal in that case heLd that accident utas occurred. due to the fault of deceased. Hauing regard to the fact that the policg which uas in force uas onlg an Act policg, autarded compensation against respondents to the extent penntssible under Workmen's Compensation Act. Challenging the award, cloimants fiLed tuo sets of oppeals seeking computation of compensation under M.V.Act since their oiginal claim u.tas under Sectton 166 of M.V.Act. tn that back drop, the important point that fell for consideration of this Court in tlult case utas as foLlou.ts: "When the accident was occuned due to the fault of deceased/ driuer himself, uhelher his L. Rs. can lag claim under Section 166 of MV Act i.e. under fault liabilitlt princi.ple ond uthether the tribunal under the M.V. Act LDas etnpowered to ctdjudicate such claim?" Discussing the case lau on this aspect, this Court in para-lo of its judgment held thus: ".......So, in substance the law ort the point in issue as per tle latest judgmenL auailable is thot Luhen a driuer htmself is responsible for the accident ond o claim petition is filed by him or his L.Rs. under Section 166 of IvtV Act bg choosing the Fontm under M.V.Act as per Section 167, then the Tibunal connot grant him compensation under Section 166 of MV Act (on fault liability pinciple) but it can anaard comp ensation under Workmen's Compensation, 11 M.A.C.M.A.No.410 oI 2O2O & Cross Objectio, .".r" ;::;:, since it7 a cloirn undt'r Workmen's Compensation Act there is no need to proue the fouLt or negligence on the part of ou.tner or some other-" b) case also th,e deceased droue the lorry as an unauthoized diuer and caused accident due to his oun fault and ultimatelA died 'fhotrglh his L. R.s. ha ue exercised option under Section 167 of MV Act and Jited clttirn petitiort Ltnder Section 166 of MV Act, the 'l'ibunal shoukl cornpute compensation under Worknen's Compensatiort Act, 1923 ontg since the accident was caused due to the fault of deceased himself beingl att em;-tlogee under his ouner. c) T-hen liabil.itg is concerned, insurer u-tilL be lioble for compensation pagable to the ertent pagable under Workmen's Compensation Act onlg. Since in the instant case the Tibunal computed compensation under the prouisions of M.V.Act and directed the ctppellant/ lnsurance Company to pay and recouer compensc ion, the tttuard l:; lioble to be set astde and motter needs remand toith a directiort to the 'l'ribtr nal to compute compensation under Workmen's Compertsotiott A(t. I t23."

21. The Coordinate Br:nch of this Court of the then High Court of Judicature for Hyderabzrd, an unreported judgment of MACMA No.924 and 3593 of 2OO9 and in MACMA No.811 oJ 2OO9, r.r,here a similar question q,hich arose that u'hether the legal heirs of a deceased lvho is solely responsible lor the accident and whose negligence the accident occurred can make an application under Section 166 of the MV Act by choosing the forum under the M.V.Act as per Section 167 of MV Acl. In ansrvering the said questions, the learned Judge therein having L2 NNR"T M.A,C.M.A.No.410 of 2020 & Ctoss Objection No.40o12021 considered the judgments of the Helen C. Rebello a. Mo,harashtra State Road Transport Corporation3, Neeta Deui v. New India Insurance Assuronce Compang Limiteda and Helen C. Rebello u. Maharashtro State Roord Iransport Corporations and Adhikaralo- Jagdishwara v. Gopala Krishna Transport and others6, the leamed judge came to conclusion that, when a driver himself is responsible for the accident and a claim petition is filed by him or his legal heirs under section 166 of the M.V.Act by choosing the forum under M.V.Act as per section 167, then the Tribunal cannot grant him compensation under section 166 of the M.V.Act on fault liability principle, but it cal award compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act. There is no need ' to prove the fault or negligence on the part of the ou,ner or some others.

22. In respect of whether the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal shall entertain the application under the claim that arises under the Workmen Compensation Act, in respect of the same, the lau' being settled. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rita Deui a. Neu Ind.ia Accident Compang Limited.,T wherein it is held that, due to deceased fault the accident might have taken place, the legal heirs or the employer 3 AIR 1998 Supteme Court 3191 '2ooo AcJ, 2oos Acc 113 t tgga-o6-ll o-1 ' 2oos-o1 ar.p '2oos ssc ttg // 13 NNR.' M-A.C-M.A.No.47O oJ 2020 & Cross Objection t,to.4O oJ 2OZl might approach the Motor Vehicle claims Tribunal and hle claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act without knowing the legal position on that gror-r.d. In such a case, the Tribunal need not necessarily reiegate him to approach the zrutl'rorities under the Workmen's Compensation Act

23. Having applied tht: said ratio to the present set of facts, though the court under the M.V.Act can proceed to entertain the complaint claim under Section 166 of N{.V.Act and the law being settled that the same has to bc arvardc'd under the Workmen Compensation Act, but in the present case, the learned rribunal has held that there is a relationship of employer and employee and that the deceased while working under the employme.t of Respondent No.1, the accident occurred. In such case, as the clairn of the claimants would arise under the Workmen compensation Act, though the claimants havc choose to claim under 166 of the MV Act, i, such case, though the same may not be entertainable under Scction 166 of the M.V.Act, hence, compensation has to be au,arded r-urder 'Workmen Compensation Act'.

24. In 'ie *, of the judgments of Hon,ble Supreme Court and also the judgment of the Coordinatc Bench of the then High court of Judicature at Hydsla6^6, thcre is .o bar for the Motor vehicre claims Tribunal to 14 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.410 ol2020 & Cross Objecaion No,40ol20Z1 entertain the application under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, where the accident occurred during the course of employment. But as it is settled that though the petition can be entertained, but the award of compensation shall be made under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the compensation has to be determined under the Workmen's Compensation Act

25. Considering the above circumstances, this Court holds that the learned Tribunal did not choose to consider the said aspects and awarded the compensation by considering the principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Salla Vartna's ccse and Praneg Sethi's case (citied 7.t a.nd 2nd supra) and awarded the compensation follou,ing the procedure under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. But in view of the above circumstances, the Iearned Tribunal ought to have adjudicated the claim and determined the compensation based on the Workmen's Compensation Act.

26. Ilor the said reason, it is a fit case nhere the said compensation has to be adjudicated under Workmen Compensation Act, therefore the award, dated 04.10.2019, in OP No.87 ol 2O17 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum- Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar deserves to be and accordingly set aside and the prcsent I 15 NNR,] M.A.C.M.A.No.41O oI2020 & Cross Obiection No.4Ool2O21 appeal and cross appcal is remanded back to the learned rribunal, with the direcrion to adjudi:'ate the compensation under the provisions of the Workmcn's Compensat ion Act, 1923 against the respondents.

27. Witl-r this clirection, tbe M.A.C.M,A.No.4LO of 2O2O and Cross Objection No.4O of 2027 are disposed of, and pursuant in the interim orders of this Court a.d the award of the Tribunal, if a'y amount is deposited and rvithdra*'n by the claimants, the same shall be adjusted subject to the dccision ol thc Tribunal. Miscellant:ous periti<>ns, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY S TANT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 'l To \ 1 The Charrman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal _cum_principal District ^ .l^rdgg Mahabubnagar (With Recordsi z une cc to sr i. Kota sameer kumar. Advocate topUCl 3 one CC to Sn K venrarcin gu-pialA;;.;.:EidE[;i, 4. Two CD Copres Pr/P d\ HIGH COURT DATED: 26111t2025 COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.No.410 ot 2020 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.40 0F 2021 toR ri{E S T4 i 'r: t { !'tiH 202[ * ,..' {: I(.) DISPOSING OF THE MACMA AND CROSS OBJECTION IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.NO: 410 OF 2020 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.40 OF 2021 Between: M/s. New lndia Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Manager, Branch Office, Opp: Modern High Schoo, Mahabub Nagar, Telangana. ...APPELLANT/R.2 AND Saritha, Wo. Late Raghu, aged 24 years, Occ Vjllage, Athmakur Mandal, presently residing Mahabub Nagar Telangana. household, R/o [\ilastipur Housing Board Colony,

2. Aravind, D/o. Late-,Raghu, aged 5 years, Minor, Being represented by his natural mother, l'' Respondent Herein, R/o. Mastipur Village, Athniakur Mandal, presently residing Housing Board, Colony, Mah-abub Nagar. Telangana.

3. Alekhya, D/o. Late_. Raghu, aged 4 years, Minor, Being represented by his natural mother, 1'' Respondent Herein, R/o. Mastipur Village, Athmakur Mandal. presently residing Housing Board, Colony, tvlahabub Nagar. Telangana. 4 M/s. M.R.K.R. Constructions and Industries Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Ramakrishna Reddy, Owner of the tipper Bearing no. AP )Y 8200, H. No. 8-2-268l'1lD/A, Plot No. 7, Aurora Colony, Road No. 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS cRoss oBJEcTtoN NO.40 0F 2021 Between: 1 . Saritha, W/o. Late Raghu, aged 24 yearc, Occ: household, 2. Aravind. D/o. Latp Raghu, aged 5 years, Minor, Being represented by his natural mother, 1'' Respondent Herein

3. Alekhya, D/o. LaJ€ Raghu, aged 4 years, Minor, Being represented by his natural mother, 1"' Respondent Herein All are Rio. Mastipur Village, Athmakur Mandal, presently residing Housing Board, Colony, Mahabubnagar. Telangana. AND CROSS oBJECToRS/RESPoNDENTS 1 to 3 5i; M?["'#,5 rtT:[i:: ", :r"st?lr" #l t5 :,ir"i" I a n a se r, B ra n ch of f i ce, ..RESPONDENT/APPELLANT 2 M/s M. R K. R. constructrons a FE?fl 9;tn#ti:Jfr%'ff rrd+?fi t't8"n^?rEry#i??6,x (Respondent No.2 rs r )nly a proforma party. No nottce is necessary to him in thrs petition) Appeal Under sectior '*",,Jii'ii'J .u19". o'0"! ai decree in M V o p No r, lHrfrliXffi Motor Accident craims "'RESPONDENT/RESPoNDENT No'4 Lt""lJ:'"J ,X",]9itT,.""1^:l .ross objections ?:_?oi, o*; d,, , b:;o;;"; ,flTi:'i,,[],? "fX"J.,ll e,n"ip"r Diskict Judse, -r;ibu;il.,ir"- These appeals com,r **Ut**!:u*ll,f iFEiiii:[[*tlx3:r.;[rf iii'nJ""':'x"n"r [xe".#,x'5?[3'.#[""Hd agi"".:ffi .d;fi ::H?lx?lllii,,,Lg,::{d#i;1";l;f This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 ) That the IVIotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross objections be and hereby Disposed Of: That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// To '1 The Chairman Motor Accident Clarms ^ Judge, Mahabubnaoar prljil', *o CD copies c}. SD/. M J ASSIST AWAHAR REDDY ANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Tribunal -cum-principal District HIGH COURT DATED: 2611112025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.410 ot 2020 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.40 0F 2021 // ,$ rJII :)'+ i. gTHES T4 { ii,4fl TCfl:': DISPOSING OF THE MACMA AND CROSS OBJECTION A