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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.