SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(AP) 75

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
A. Chalapati – Appellant
Versus
Sathyanarayana. N. Nuwal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. P. Venkatramana Reddy, Counsel for the Appellant.
None appeared for the Respondents.

ORDFR

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of award dated 15.11.2005 in O.P.No.119 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle (for short, "the Tribunal").

2. The appellant filed this appeal feeling partly aggrieved by the abovementioned award to the extent of the Tribunal disallowing his claim towards compensation.

3. I have heard Sri M. Venkatramana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. There is no representation for respondent No.1 in spite of service of notice. Despite service of notice, Sri B. Devanand, learned counsel, who entered appearance for respondent No.4, is not present. Though respondent No.3 is not served, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that no relief is claimed against her and therefore non-service of notice on her is inconsequential.

4. The appellant was the driver of lorry bearing registration No. AP 03 T 9625 owned by respondent No.3. The said lorry is insured with respondent No.4. Respondent No.1 is the owner of lorry bearing registration No. AP 03 W 657, which was insured with respondent No.2. On 22.07.2002, at about 11.00 a.m., the lorry driven by the appellant collided with the l











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top