Friday, 17, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Bussu Ravi Teja vs G. Mallaiah And 2 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 3306 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 3306 Tel
Judgement Date : 23 August, 2024

Telangana High Court

Bussu Ravi Teja vs G. Mallaiah And 2 Others on 23 August, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A. No.597 of 2021

JUDGMENT:

The appellant who is the claimant preferred this appeal

challenging the dismissal order and decree, dated 08.01.2021, passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional

District and Sessions Judge, (II Fast Track Court), Nalgonda, in M.V.O.P.

No.1097 of 2010 which was filed by him seeking compensation for the

injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the Tata van 407 bearing No.

AP.13.U.5112.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the

Tribunal without properly considering the contentions of the appellant

and oral and documentary evidence on record, has dismissed the claim

petition on the ground that the claimant has not added the driver of the

crime vehicle as a party respondent in M.V.O.P. and the name of driver of

crime vehicle is wrongly mentioned in Form No.54 by the Investigating

Officer.

3.1. He further submitted that the accident had taken place due to the

rash and negligent driving of one K.Mahesh. Basing on the complaint

lodged by the petitioner, police registered the crime and in the F.I.R. as

well as in the final report, driver's name was mentioned as K.Mahesh. In

spite of the same, the Court below had dismissed the M.V.O.P. without

taking into consideration of the F.I.R. and charge sheet, though Form

No.54 was not marked on behalf of the respondents before the Tribunal.

4. He further contended that the driver is not required as a party

respondent to decide the claim petition filed under Motor Vehicles Act, as

per the principle laid down in "New India Assurance Company Limited,

Manex Centre, Jamnagar vs. Cargo Motors Limited 1", by the High

Court of Gujarat. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment

passed by the Tribunal.

5. Per contra, Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel for

respondent No.3-Insurance Company contended that the driver is proper

and necessary party for adjudication of the motor accident cases. In so

far as the other contention is concerned, learned counsel for the

respondent No.3-Insurance Company fairly submits that the matter is

required reconsideration by the Tribunal, as the Form No.54 is not

marked on behalf of the respective parties.

2009 ACJ 2771

6. Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of reply

submits that the appellant may be directed to file necessary application

before the Tribunal for impleading the driver of the crime vehicle as a

party respondent.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective

parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals

that the Tribunal dismissed the M.V.O.P. on the ground that the

appellant has not impleaded the driver of the crime vehicle as a party

respondent and there is a discrepancy in Form No.54, wherein the name

of the driver of crime vehicle was recorded as 'Md.Ameer Khan'. Though

the name of the driver is recorded in the F.I.R. and charge sheet as

'K.Mahesh', the Tribunal without properly considering the F.I.R. and

charge sheet, passed the impugned judgment and the same is liable to be

set aside and the matter is required reconsideration.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and

decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV

Additional District and Sessions Judge, (II Fast Track Court), Nalgonda

in M.V.O.P.No.1097 of 2010 dated 08.01.2021 are set aside and the

matter is remitted back to the Tribunal below with a direction to dispose

of the M.V.O.P.No.1097 of 2010 in accordance with law, as expeditiously

as possible. The appellant is granted liberty to file necessary application

for impleading the driver of the crime vehicle as a party respondent. No

costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

______________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J Date:23.08.2024 pgp

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter