YERRAGUTLA MANJU BHARGAVI REDDY vs NAGA CHANDRA MOHAN — MACMA /291/2023

Case under Motor Vehiicles Act Section 173. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 07th April 2026.

CNR: APHC010271472023

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

MACMA /22053/2023

Filing Date

13-06-2023

Registration No

MACMA /291/2023

Registration Date

26-06-2023

Judge

V.SUJATHA

Coram

V.SUJATHA

Bench Type

Single Bench

Judicial Branch

CIVIL Section

Decision Date

07th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

11-MOTOR VEHIICLES ACT Section 173

Petitioner(s)

YERRAGUTLA MANJU BHARGAVI REDDY

Adv. Y BHAGYALAKSHMI REDDY

Respondent(s)

NAGA CHANDRA MOHAN

Bandi Devaraju Reddy

The Divisional Manager,

Adv. N RAMA KRISHNA

The Divisional Manager,

Hearing History

Judge: V.SUJATHA

05-07-2023

FOR ADMISSION

07-04-2026

FOR DISMISSAL

06-04-2026

FOR DISMISSAL

31-03-2026

FOR DISMISSAL

17-03-2026

FINAL HEARING

Orders

31-03-2026
V.SUJATHA
06-04-2026
V.SUJATHA
07-04-2026
C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,V.SUJATHA

Summary The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the claimant's appeal seeking compensation for vehicle damage from a 2018 motor accident. While the court found that the accident occurred due to the defendant's rash and negligent driving, it upheld the tribunal's dismissal because the claimant failed to prove registered ownership of the damaged vehicle—repair bills showed another person's name as the tax invoice holder and the claimant only as "customer name," not as owner with proper registration certificate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the claimant's appeal seeking compensation for vehicle damage from a 2018 motor accident. While the court found that the accident occurred due to the defendant's rash and negligent driving, it upheld the tribunal's dismissal because the claimant failed to prove registered ownership of the damaged vehicle—repair bills showed another person's name as the tax invoice holder and the claimant only as "customer name," not as owner with proper registration certificate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case