Building v. Secunderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
hereby is confirmed a rc this Appeal is Dismissed and thrs oc,r rt doth further order
Provisions considered
Judgment
Petition unde siection 151 of CPC praying that rn th : r;trc lmstances f tled in support or in cordone delay in this petition, the Hrgh C )urt rlay be qlglsea stay oi all further pr oc:eedings in M.V.O.P No.197 of 2004 lated 04.11.2006 on the file of chairnra r, Motor Vehicles Accidents clairns Tr bunal-cum-1st Addl. chief Judge, city ci ril court, at secunderabad pendinq disp:sal of the order. Counsel for the Apl ellant : Sri SOMANCHI VENKATESWATTLLI Counsel for the Res pondents: None appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI M.A.C.M.A.No.886 of 2O1O JUDGMENT: The insurance company is aggrieved by the award dated
04.1 1.2006 in O.P.No. 197 of 2004 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
2. Having heard Mr. Somanchi Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the insurance company, perused the entire material on record.
3. I-earned counsel for the insurance company submits that aggrieved by the same award, another appeal i.e. MACMA No.4193 of 2OO8 was l-rled by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation and the same was allowed by this court on O3.O2.2023.
4. In the light of the above orders passed by this court, the appeal of the insurance company is liable to be dismissed.
5. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal of thc insurance company is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, i[ any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. JAY ASSISTANT REGI REE RAR To, FICER 1 . The Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Clairns Tribunal-cum-'l "t SECTION Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad.
2. One CC to Sri SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU, Advoc:rte IOPUC] 3. Two CD Copies Njb q HIGH COURI LK,J DATED:1810412023 ,. A- l,r. ! nnalrl al.:iJ i i JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.t 86 ot 2010 DISMISSING THE N AI]MA. @ C.ti'$ 9- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MOTOR ACCI DENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO : 886 0F 2010 Between: United Office-6, Lenin Estate, Gunfoundry. nyaerbUaO -lndia lnsurance co. Ltd., rep. by its Regionar rVlanager, Divrsional - " - 3"..q. Oy ^United India lnsurance. Qo Ltd., Divisionrrl Office_t, Ramataya Building, S. D.Road, Secunderabad_500003 AND ..,APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 'H,!jii:!,,tltiiftTX:S{".fi :f il:3:iinYf; ;,uo*t?tHi,o,".!i1?y::n",0 LOtnuKunta, secunderabad.
2. Md..Khaleem, S/o.Ameerud_din Age: 32 years, Occ: Labr, ur R/o.i0_1_1 19, Bariman, Slddipet, Medak Districi. ttow'Rlo.2_f t _07/2, I .Lthukunta, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENT NO. 1/PETITIONER NO.1
Operative part
3. Md.Zaheruddin, S/o.Ameerlddin Age: 23 years, Occ N , R/o 10-i_1 19, Bariman, S.iddipet, Medak District.. Ntow Rl'o.Z_ t 1 _61 tZ, t,Jthuku nta, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENT NO.2/PETITIONER NO.2 + |t!"a,Sfr91e_ena Begum, D/o.Ameeruddin Age:22 years, Occ: Nil R/o. 10-1-119, Bariman, Siddipet, Medak Distridt. NowR/o 2 fi--ozii, r6irrur<unta, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENT NO.3/PETITIONER NO.3 s $_0,,!9U]a,P99!m: ?lo lTe_qruddin Age: 1B years, occ Nit R/o t0_1_119, Eanman, Srddipet, Medak District. Now R/o.2_.1 1_6712 I othukunta, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENT NO.4/PETITIONER NO.4 ...RESPONDENT NC s/PETITIONER NO.5 o K,Ramakrishr r,\chari, S/o.Brmatah, Occ: Business tt/o .l 9/A, pasupula Village, Kurno rl Districi. ...RESPONDENT NO.6/rtE:SPONDENT NO.1 Appeal filed r.rn ier section 173 of M.V. Act, agar, ;t tho order dated 04.11.2006 in o.P.r o. 197 of 2oo4 on the fire of the cha .,-rn, i.4otor Vehicres Accidents Claims T ibunal-cum-1't Additional Chief Judqe. C rty Civil Court, at Secunderabad. This appeal comi rg on for hearing and upon perusing he : [V emorandum of Appeal, the order of I re Lower Court and the material papers ,t the :ase, and upon hearing the argumerts of Sri soMANcHl VENKATESWARLU, Arlvocate for the Appellant and none al )peared for Respondents. DECREE: This court order and Decree that the Decree :t th: rrwer coLrrt be and hereby is confirmed a rc this Appeal is Dismissed and thrs oc,r rt doth further order and Decree that there br: no orders as to costs in this Appr:al //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T, JAYASREE AS S IS,T,qN'T REGISTRAR
The Chairmar , Motor Vehicles Accidents Addrtiona Chie' judge, City Civil Court, at Secunrjer:o;rd SE:cTtoN drrtcen Clairr; Tr bunal-cum- 1"t
Two CD Copi :s To, Njb a HIGH COUIT'T LK J , DATED:1810412023 DECREE+J UDGMENT MACMA.Nc.886 ot 2010 DISMISSING THI MACMA. 4 X*
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: hereby is confirmed a rc this Appeal is Dismissed and thrs oc,r rt doth further order
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.