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

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17748

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
GODAVARI BUJJI – Appellant
Versus
T. SRINIVASA PRASAD – Respondent
CRP 3570/2025



##PAGE1##

2025:APHC:59382

APHC010666642025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3329]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3570/2025

Between:

1. G ODAVARI BUJJI, W/O. LATE BALA SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 49

YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. H.NO.4-4-42, RAMNAGAR,

PERALA VILLAGE, CHIRALA MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT, A.P.

2. J AGANNADHAM KOTESWARI,, W/O. CHIRANJEEVI D/O. LATE

BALA SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 34 YEARS OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O.

H.NO.231-8-4, NEAR WATER TANK, YSR COLONY, JAKKAMPUDI,

VIJAYAWADA RURAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. A.P.

3. G ODAVARI KIRAN,, S/O. LATE BALA SUBRAMANYAM AGED 31

YEARS, OCC. AUTO DRIVER, R/O. H.NO.4-4-42, RAMNAGAR,

PERALA VILLAGE, CHIRALA MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT, A.P.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. T SRINIVASA PRASAD, S/O. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, DRIVER OF

VEHICLE BEARING NO. AP 39 TZ 0664, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O.

D.NO.1-49, MAIN ROAD, KOLAVENN VILLAGE, KANKIPADU

MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P.

2. V ISWANADHAM BAPANAIAH, S/O. SOMAIAH, OWNER OF VEHICLE

BEARING NO. AP 39 TZ 0664, AGED 52 YEARS, H.NO.2-62-2,

KAMMANAMOULU VILLAGE, NAALI NALI, NAGAYALANKA

MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P

3. C HOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,

REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, VIJAYAWADA BRANCH OFFICE,

##PAGE2##

2

2025:APHC:59382

R/O. D.NO.40-1-48/1,2ND FLOOR, BEHIND KOTAK MAHINDRA

BANK, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P.-

520010.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the

circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be

pleased toThe above named Petitioner beg to present this Civil Revision

Petition aggrieved by the docket order dated 20.02.2024 passed in I.A. No.

/2024 in M.V.O.P. NO. /2024 (CFR No.7358 of 2023) on the file of the court of

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-District and Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District at Ongole, for the following among other.

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following:

##PAGE3##

3

2025:APHC:59382

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3570/2025

ORDER:-

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India aggrieved by the docket order dated 20.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.

/2024 in M.V.O.P.No. /2024 (CFR No.7358 of 2023) on the file of the Court

of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District and Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District at Ongole.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the

amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 in the year 2019 Section 166(3)

of the Act contemplates as under:

“Section 166(3) – No application for compensation shall

be entertained unless it is made within six months of the

occurrence of the accident”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the present

case, there is only delay of 28 days in filing the petition under Section 166 of

the M.V. Act and also filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,

1963 seeking for condonation of delay. He further argued that the Hon’ble

Apex Court passed an order in SLP Nos.8412-8413 of 2023, wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court posted the matters for consideration and further held that

till consideration of the matter, it is specifically directed not to dismiss any

##PAGE4##

4

2025:APHC:59382

application on the ground that main claim petition is filed after the prescribed

period under Section 166(3) of the M.V. Act. But contrary to the order of the

Hon’ble Apex Court, the trial Court dismissed the limitation application.

Therefore, the order impunged is liable to be set aside and the matter should

be remanded for fresh consideration as per the orders of the Hon’ble Apex

Court.

5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner/appellant and perused the record.

6. It is appropriate to extract the order of the trial Court dated

06.02.2024 a

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 Back to top