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

2014 Supreme(AP) 1134

M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd rep. by its Manager – Appellant
Versus
T. Laxman Goud – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Counsel for the appellant : Sri T.Mahender Rao
Counsel for Respondents: Sri K.Harimohan Reddy

JUDGMENT:

These two civil miscellaneous appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act for short), one filed by the 2nd respondent-insurance company and the other by the claimants arise out of an award dated 13.12.2013 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Therefore, both the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The parties in these appeals shall hereinafter be referred to as the claimants, the owner-cum-insured of the crime vehicle and the insurance company for convenience and clarity.

3. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the insurance company. None appeared for the owner/insured as no notice was served on him; and both the learned counsel had stated that in these appeals, no notice is necessary to the said respondent, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Meka Chakra Rao v. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others.

4. I shall first advert to th




























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