CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Konala Maniyya vs K. Sambasivarao and others

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 21 September 1999 · Citation: (2001) ACJ 112 : (1999) 6 ALD 703 : (1999) 6 ALT 663

HON’BLE JUDGES
Elipe Dharma Rao, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 14 · Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 165
CASE NUMBER
CMA No. 979 of 1993
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 336 words
1.

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19-5-1992 passed in MOP No.168 of 1991 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, dismissing the claim of the appellant-claimant.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that on 14-12-1990 at about 5.00 a.m., the oil tanker, bearing No.AHQ 5499, belonging to the petitioner, which was transporting Molasses from Bobbili Sugar Factory to Samalkot Sugar Factory, when stopped on the extreme left side of the road, the lorry bearing No.AIC 3389, belonging to the second respondent, driven by its driver-first respondent, came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner''s vehicle as a result, the petitioner''s vehicle was damaged. Therefore, the petitioner filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.61,602/-.

3.

It is stated that the respondents 1 and 3 remained ex parte. In view of the claim made by the petitioner, the fourth respondent-Insurance Company paid an amount of Rs.19,000/- towards damages caused to the vehicle. With regard to the other claims made by the appellant-claimant towards loss of business when the vehicle was under repair and payment of salary to the cleaners and drivers of the lorry, the Court below following the judgment in General Manager, KSRTC v. Saradamma, 1987 ACJ 92, dismissed the petition on the ground that the said petition has to be preferred before a civil Court since the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such claims.

4.

In view of the above, I have no hesitation to accept the finding arrived at by the Court below. Hence, the appeal fails. However, the appellant had approached the Tribunal under bona fide intention that the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. Therefore, the time spent by the appellant, both in the Tribunal and in the High Court, may be excluded for calculating the limitation u/s 14 of the Limitation Act.

5.

With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.