Allowed

Venna Sai Ravi Taja v. Chillimuntha Ramesh

Telangana HC17 Sept 2010CRP/3236/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a civil revision petition setting aside the dismissal of an order under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. The petitioner's delay was condoned, restoring the original claim petition for a motor accident compensation suit instituted in his minor capacity.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing I.A. set aside, flow of suit restored under Order IX Rule 9 CPC with conditions on interest calculation.

Venna Sai Ravi Taja Vs Chillimuntha Ramesh — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3236 of 2010

¶3

Between: Venna Sai Ravi Teja

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

And

¶6

Chillimuntha Ramesh and two others

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

This Court made the following:

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶10

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3236 of 2010

¶11

ORDER:-

¶12

Petitioner, who was a minor claimant in O.P.No.591 of 2006, filed the above O.P. through his father claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him on his hand in a motor accident. The said O.P. was dismissed for default on 07.01.2008. On such dismissal, he filed I.A.No.1327 of 2008 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 132 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) to set aside the default order. On dismissal of the above I.A., he filed the present revision.

¶13

It is not disputed that the petitioner filed the above O.P., through his father, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, in which an advocate commissioner was appointed on 29.10.2007 to record the evidence of the petitioner and posted the matter to 21.11.2007. Till 27.12.2007, the commissioner could not file the report after examining the petitioner. A notice was issued to the commissioner by the Court to return the warrant either executed or unexecuted on 07.01.2008 and on the said date there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the clam petition was dismissed.

¶14

On dismissal of the claim petition, the impugned I.A. is filed by the petitioner stating that the commissioner appointed by the Court has not given any notice to their counsel, but stated that there is no cooperation on behalf of the petitioner. Since his advocate was engaged in another court, he could not represent the matter on 07.01.2008 and there is no wilful default on his part. Hence, the delay may be condoned.

¶15

Admittedly, the O.P. was instituted on behalf of the minor and the court shall act as a guardian. For the lapses committed by the natural guardian, who instituted the above O.P., the petitioner could not be suffered. Therefore, the court below has not taken the said factor into consideration and dismissed the I.A., holding that the delay in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 9 CPC has not been properly explained.

¶16

Sri K.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the Insurance Company concedes for condonation of the delay, but he contends that the insurance company cannot be saddled with the interest, having no fault of it.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also agreed for the proposal made by this court that in the event, if any, compensation was awarded, the petitioner is not entitled to claim interest on the said amount from the date on which the O.P. was dismissed for default i.e., on 07.01.2008 till today.

¶18

To advance the cause of justice, the delay of 132 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, is condoned and the I.A. is accordingly allowed, setting aside the impugned order; and consequently, the petition filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC is also allowed restoring the O.P. to its file, with the following conditions:

¶19

1) In the event, if any, compensation was awarded by the court below, the petitioner is not entitled for any interest on the said amount from 07.01.2008 till today i.e., 17.09.2010. The interest, if any, shall be from the date of

¶20

petition till 07.01.2008 and from today i.e., 17.09.2010 till the date of payment of the compensation. 2) The petitioner shall file his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the court below, on service of the same to the parties and shall also present in the court for cross-examination, if any, on the date fixed by the court below.

¶21

Subject to the above conditions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

_________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J

¶23

17^th September 2010 lmv

Venna Sai Ravi Taja v. Chillimuntha Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venna Sai Ravi Taja v. Chillimuntha Ramesh

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

Rajula Narayanareddy, Vs The State of a.P., through Sho, Kadapa I Town, Nalgonda

Naraharisetty Rama Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. v.Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of A.P.

P.Ravi Varma(A-2) Vs Hanumanthu Rajagopala Rao

Dommeti Ramakrishna, Vs The State of A.P.

Dhanalakota Gangadharam Vs Dilip Kumar Kothatri