Jatavath Sali Vs. Mandal Parishad Development Officer and anr.

Jatavath Sali vs Mandal Parishad Development Officer and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Jan 23, 2006

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/424593

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/424593
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: P.S. Narayana, J.
Decided On: Jan 23, 2006
Case Number: C.R.P. No. 6256 of 2005
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (59 OF 1988)Section 149 (2): [V. Gopala Gowda & Jawad Rahim, JJ] Insurers entitlement to defend the action Joint appeal by insured and insurer - Held, The language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of Section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. It shows that w...

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Sections 2, 2(1), 11B, 12 and 19(5); Constitution of India - Article 227

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jatavath Sali

Advocate T.N. Ranga Rao, Adv.

Respondent

Mandal Parishad Development Officer and anr.

Advocate None

Legal References

Acts: Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Sections 2, 2(1), 11B, 12 and 19(5); Constitution of India - Article 227
Reported In: 2006(2)ALT217

Excerpt

.....the act to seek compensation under section 166 of the act resulting in award passed by the tribunal. therefore, the insured and the insurer have no escape but to discharge the said award as directed. undisputedly, in this case as deduced for proved facts, the vehicle in question was not properly maintained by the owner and despite faulty brake system, the claimant had undertaken the hazardous journey to his peril at the behest of and at the instruction of the owner. the owner is therefore, tortfeasor. section 168: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers limit of liability - held, it is well settled that the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation can be statutory or contractual. is for the insurance company to show that the insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. that issue was neither raised before the tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under section 149 (1) of the act. where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the vehicle with mechanical defects, the owner would be the tortfeasor and the claimant can maintain a petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the act, instead of seeking compensation under the workmens compensation act. on facts, held, the material evidence on record, particularly, with regard to the income of the claimant, his age, medical evidence and the evidence relating to pecuniary loss has not been considered by the tribunal in the correct perspective, which has resulted in passing of the impugned award, disproportionate to the pecuniary loss and the loss of future income of the victim. the settled principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye...........reads as hereunder:petitioner present. counter filed. in view of the counter filed by the mandal development officer, there is dispute in regard to identity of gopala swamy sangal, and as such it is difficult to ascertain disputed questions of fact before lok adalat. hence, petition is closed.4. sri t.n. ranga rao, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the petitioner being woman, had moved the committee aforesaid in view of section 12(c) of the legal services authorities act, 1987, praying for referring the matter for settlement of amount under water shed works scheme. the learned counsel also would maintain that inasmuch as the mandal legal services committee also is an authority, the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of this court under article 227 of the constitution of india. the learned counsel also would maintain that even if disputed questions of fact are involved in the matter, the better course would have been to give liberty to the petitioner to invoke the appropriate remedy, but closing the petition with such observation would cause prejudice to the rights of the petitioner,5. heard the learned counsel.6. as can be seen from the record, the revision petitioner moved the petition under section 19(5) in view of section 12(c) of the legal services authorities act, 1987 and in view of the counter filed by the mandal development officer, inasmuch as disputed questions of fact are involved, the petition was closed and aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition was filed.7. the learned counsel also placed reliance on t. nadipi masum saheb v. tamidala rama devi and ors. : 2005(6)alt104 and also the decision of this court in c.r.p. nos. 2261 and 2262 of 2005, dated 6-7-2005.8. section 11b of the legal services authorities act, 1987 dealing with the functions of taluk legal services committee reads as hereunder:the taluk legal services committee may perform all or any of the following functions,.....

Full Judgment

P.S. Narayana, J.

1. Heard Sri T.N. Ranga Rao

2. This Court ordered Notice Before Admission on 15-12-2005. The revision petitioner is questioning the order made in P.L.C. No. 285 of 2005, dated 3-9-2005 on the file of the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. The order impugned reads as hereunder:

Petitioner present. Counter filed. In view of the counter filed by the Mandal Development Officer, there is dispute in regard to identity of Gopala Swamy Sangal, and as such it is difficult to ascertain disputed questions of fact before Lok Adalat. Hence, petition is closed.

4. Sri T.N. Ranga Rao, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the petitioner being woman, had moved the Committee aforesaid in view of Section 12(c) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, praying for referring the matter for settlement of amount under Water Shed Works Scheme. The learned Counsel also would maintain that inasmuch as the Mandal Legal Services Committee also is an authority, the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel also would maintain that even if disputed questions of fact are involved in the matter, the better course would have been to give liberty to the petitioner to invoke the appropriate remedy, but closing the petition with such observation would cause prejudice to the rights of the petitioner,

5. Heard the learned Counsel.

6. As can be seen from the record, the revision petitioner moved the petition under Section 19(5) in view of Section 12(c) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and in view of the counter filed by the Mandal Development Officer, inasmuch as disputed questions of fact are involved, the petition was closed and aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition was filed.

7. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on T. Nadipi Masum Saheb v. Tamidala Rama Devi and Ors. : 2005(6)ALT104 and also the decision of this Court in C.R.P. Nos. 2261 and 2262 of 2005, dated 6-7-2005.

8. Section 11B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 dealing with the functions of Taluk Legal Services Committee reads as hereunder:

The Taluk Legal Services Committee may perform all or any of the following functions, namely:

(a) co-ordinate the activities of legal services on the taluk;

(b) organize Lok Adalats within the taluk; and

9. Section 2 of the aforesaid Act deals with the definitions. Section 2(1)(aaa) defines the court as: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, Court means a civil, criminal or revenue court and includes any tribunal or any other authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

10. It is needless to say that the Committee aforesaid is an authority constituted under the Act aforesaid, exercising the quasi-judicial functions. When disputed questions of fact are involved and when the Committee is of the opinion that the same cannot be decided before Lok Adalat, it would have been appropriate to give liberty to the petitioner to invoke proper remedy and without observing so, closure of the petition would cause prejudice to the rights of the revision petitioner.

11. In view of the same, the impugned order so far as it relates to the closing of the petition is concerned, the same is hereby set aside, giving liberty to the revision petitioner to invoke appropriate remedy as per law.

12. The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2006 Same Parties Jatavath Sali vs Mandal Parishad Development Officer and anr. Same Subject Civil Same Judge P.S. Narayana, J. Acts & Sections Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Sections 2, 2(1), 11B,...

Civil