Accident case - M.V. - sustained fracture of left 7 th and 8 th ribs besides lacerated injury, which are described as grievous. It is only from the evidence in making the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- and the Tribunal therefrom awarded in all Rs.79,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. - Having regard to the above, there is nothing to say the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is utterly low, in fact it is exorbitant but for no cross objections.

MACMA 505 / 2016
MACMASR 45903 / 2010CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
T.NAGESH  VSE.VENKAT REDDY AND ANOTHER

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. M.P. No. 644 OF 2011 IN/ AND M.A.C.M.A. No.505 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
The injured claimant filed the appeal having been aggrieved by the order/ award passed on 17.09.2009 in O.P. No.2767 of 2008 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum- III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) under Section 166 of M.V. Act for Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident dated 08.7.2007 and the Tribunal awarded Rs.79,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum with joint liability against the owner and insurer of the jeep bearing No.AP 22U 8487. It is impugning the said quantum and also the rate of interest at 7.5% per annum is utterly low, present appeal is filed by the claimant.
2) Heard learned counsel for appellants.
3) The respondent No.2—insurer even served failed to attend hence taken as heard. Respondent No.1 reamined exparte before the Tribunal and even impleaded in this appeal dismissed for default is no way fatal to the maintainability of the appeal Meka Charadhara Rao vs Yelubandi Babu Rao [1] and the same is recorded.
4) The delay of 307 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
5) At request of learned counsel for appellant, the appeal is taken up for hearing. Heard and perused the material on record.
6) As per Ex.A3—certified copy of MLC coupled with evidence of PW.2—Dr.M.Poornaiah, show that PW.1—injured sustained fracture of left 7 th and 8 th ribs besides lacerated injury, which are described as grievous. It is only from the evidence in making the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- and the Tribunal therefrom awarded in all Rs.79,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. 
7) Having regard to the above, there is nothing to say the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is utterly low, in fact it is exorbitant but for no cross objections. 
8) Accordingly and in the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the award passed by the Tribunal. No order as to costs. 9) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Appeal shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J 29.01.2016 knl HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. M.P. No. 644 OF 2011 IN/ AND M.A.C.M.A. No.505 of 2016 Date: 29.01.2016 Knl [1] 2001 (1) ALT 495 DB

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.