Telangana High Court
CRP/3570/2012 of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Nikhat Fatima, on 31 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3570 of 2012 ORDER:- In this Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P.) assailed order dated 01.11.2010 passed in I.A.No.241 of 2011 in O.P.No.1454 of 2008 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3570 of 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:-
In this Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P.) assailed order dated01.11.2010 passed in I.A.No.241 of 2011 in O.P.No.1454 of 2008 onthe file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IVAdditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVIII Additional ChiefJudge, Hyderabad.
2. Heard.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-2[nd] respondent (insurancecompany) in the main O.P. has submitted that there was no policy forthe crime vehicle in question by the time of accident, yet the Courtdirected the petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 ofM.V.Act, 1988 on 01.11.2010 towards no fault liability. Though thecourt below directed to deposit the entire amount, the petitionerdeposited only Rs.25,000/- to enable it to approach this Court for theredressal of the grievance.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 has submitted that inspite of giving two years time, the petitioner (insurance company)failed to take necessary measures for adducing necessary evidenceand the Court below rightly passed the impugned order.
5. Having gone through the impugned order, I find that nodiscussion or finding with regards to the question of non-issuance ofany insurance policy by the petitioner for the relevant period was madetherein even though in the corresponding Counter filed, the said pleawas taken on behalf of the petitioner herein. Unless the policy wasthere, the question of directing the petitioner to pay the said amountdoes not arise at all. Further, the circumstances of the case make itvery clear that in spite of taking long time, the petitioner failed to take necessary measures for adducing necessary evidence, which is notproper.
6. In the circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed directingthe court below to take necessary steps with regard to the plea takenby the petitioner and pass necessary orders within one month from thedate of receipt of copy of this order. The Court below has to fix definitedate for the concerned witnesses to give evidence and also formarking of relevant documents, if any.
The deposited amount of Rs.25,000/-, is subject to the result ofO.P.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Civil RevisionPetition shall stand closed.
31[st] December, 2012Anr
________________________________
G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
Anr
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3570 of 2012
Date: 31.12.2012