Allowed

A. Hemalatha v. B. Subbaraju Gupta

Telangana HC12 Jul 2011CRP/2987/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice G.V.Seethapathy allowed the civil revision petition in Andhra Pradesh High Court, setting aside the dismissal of an application to amend the claim. The court permitted the claimants to increase the compensation amount from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.2 lakhs, subject to payment of additional court fee, ordering the Tribunal to reconsider the amount on evidence during the enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing the amendment application set aside; petitioners permitted to amend claim to Rs.2 lakhs subject to additional court fee.

A. Hemalatha Vs B. Subbaraju Gupta — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT::

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶5

C.R.P.No.2987 OF 2008

¶6

Between: A.Hemalatha

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

A n d B.Subbaraju Gupta and another

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶11

C.R.P.No.2987 OF 2008

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.03.2008 in I.A.No.89 of 2008 in M.V.O.P.No.1245 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein, seeking amendment of the claim application by enhancing the amount from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.2 lakhs, was dismissed.

¶14

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

¶15

3. The claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.1245 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs.1 lakh on account of death

¶16

of the deceased Nagaraj Babu Subramanyam Gupta, who is husband of the

¶17

1^st petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 4 and son of 5^th petitioner. It is stated that the enquiry into the claim is not yet commenced.

¶18

The petitioners merely sought amendment of the amount claimed by them from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.2 lakhs.

¶19

4. There cannot be any tenable objection for permitting the petitioners to amend the claim inasmuch as the question as to what could be the just and reasonable compensation payable will have to be considered by the Tribunal on evidence that may be let in during the course of enquiry. The petitioners are, therefore, permitted to amend the claim application as prayed for, subject to payment of additional Court fee. The impugned order is set aside.

¶20

5. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

_____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶22

12^th July, 2011 Lrkm.

A. Hemalatha v. B. Subbaraju Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Hemalatha v. B. Subbaraju Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sai Leela Educational Society Vs G.Satyanarayana

Kusuma Chaitanya Mohan Vs The State of A.P.

B.Satyanarayana Vs B.Srilatha

Smt. Ansu Begum, (Elder Sister), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mrs. Hannahleena , Leena Paul Vs James Herbert Paul

V.Narayana Vs The State of A.P.