Allowed

Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company Limited v. High Court Legal Services Committee

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Mar 2022WP/31074/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a writ petition under Article 226 correcting an error in a National E-Lok Adalat award. The High Court directed that the settlement amount be clarified as inclusive of earlier deposits and ordered a refund of the surplus deposited balance to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award was amended to show the settlement amount includes the deposited sum, and the claimants were directed to refund the surplus balance to the petitioner.

Bajaj Allianze General Insurance… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.31074 of 2021

¶4

ORDER:-

¶5

Heard Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company, Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶6

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records, pertaining to the order dated 10.07.2021, passed in National E-Lok Adalat, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, in C.M.A.No.1000 of 2011, for rectification of the error crept in the said order.

¶7

Petitioner herein filed the aforesaid C.M.A.No.1000 of 2011, against the award dated 18.03.2010, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur in W.C.No.4 of 2008, under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, granting a sum of Rs.3,39,294/towards compensation amount. It is not in dispute that by depositing the entire amount awarded by the Workmen’s

¶8

¶9

Compensation Commissioner, petitioner-Insurance

¶10

Company preferred C.M.A.No.1000 of 2011. This appeal was referred to the National E-Lok Adalat, held in this Court on 10.07.2021 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a settlement was arrived at for a sum of Rs.3,29,000/- , payable to the claimants and with a further condition that the amount of Rs.10,972/-, which was already deposited has to be refunded to the petitionerInsurance Company.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has not disputed the said statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and infact learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 have submitted that in the impugned award, it is wrongly stated as under:

¶12

“the insurance company is agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,29,000/- towards compensation in addition to the amount deposited before Assistant Commissioner of Labour.”

¶13

Infact, it has to be mentioned as under:

¶14

“Settled the matter out of Court for an amount of Rs.3,29,000/and respondent Nos.2 to 4 promised to return an amount of Rs.10,972/- to petitioner’s Insurance Company which is already deposited.”

¶15

In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing that the amount payable to the claimants shall be modified as Rs.3,29,000/- which has already been deposited before filing the appeal, but not in

¶16

¶17

addition to the amount already deposited. It is also made clear that balance of Rs.10,972/- (round off to Rs.10,000/-) shall be refunded by the claimants to the petitionerInsurance Company. Accordingly, necessary amendments shall be carried out in the impugned award. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this

¶19

Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶20

JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶21

_________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶22

Date:23.03.2022 VSL

¶23

Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company Limited v. High Court Legal Services Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company Limited v. High Court Legal Services Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G M Sreedhar Vs Karikala Valavan

Devalla Bhavitha Reddy Vs Smt. Poonam Malakondaiah

Paleti Srisha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Borugadda Brenham Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Venkateswarlu, Chittoor Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. and 3 Ors.

Cherlopalli Madhava Narasimha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh