Allowed

Edla Sarojana v. Rongala Balaraju , Raju

Telangana HC10 Jul 2012MACMA/3108/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court modified the apportionment of motor accident compensation between a grandmother and minor grandchildren. It increased the grandmother's share and permitted her to withdraw periodic interest from the minors' fixed deposits to maintain them, allowing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The apportionment of compensation was modified; the claimant grandmother is entitled to Rs.1,30,000 and minors to Rs.1,50,000 each with interest periodic withdrawal allowed for maintenance.

Edla Sarojana Vs Rongala Balaraju , Raju — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶5

MACMAMP.No. 5091 OF 2011 AND

¶6

MACMA.NO. 3108 OF 2011

¶7

Between:

¶8

Edla Sarojana & Ors. … AppellantsRespondents V/s. Rongala Balaraju @ Raju & Ors. … RespondentsRespondents

¶9

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri S. Lakshma Reddy

¶10

Counsel for the Respondents : None appeared

¶11

The Court made the following : (Common Judgment follows)

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶13

MACMAMP.No. 5091 OF 2011 AND MACMA.NO. 3108 OF 2011

¶14

COMMON JUDGMENT :

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-respondents. No representation for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶16

2. MACMA.MP.No. 5091 of 2011 is filed seeking to permit the

¶17

appellant No.1 to withdraw 1/3^rd of the total compensation of Rs.4,30,000=00.

¶18

3. This appeal is filed challenging the apportionment of compensation made by the learned Claims Tribunal. The claimants filed MVOP.No. 3 of 2009 before the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI-Additional District Judge (III-Fast Track Court), Warangal at Mahbubabad, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000=00. The learned Claims Tribunal after making inquiry into the claim awarded compensation of Rs.4,30,000=00 with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the

¶19

petition till the date of realization. The first claimant is the grand mother of the deceased and claimants 2 and 3 are minor children of the deceased.

¶20

The learned Claims Tribunal held in the award that the first appellant, grand mother of the deceased is entitled for an amount of Rs.30,000=00 and claimants 2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.2,00,000=00 each. The leaned Claims Tribunal permitted the first appellant to withdraw the amount of her share and directed the balance amount awarded to the appellants 2 and 3 (minor claimants) to keep the amount in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain majority. The said apportionment is only challenged in the present appeal.

¶21

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that since meager amount is awarded to the first appellant, it is very difficult for her to maintain the appellants 2 and 3 who are minor children of the deceased. Therefore, they sought to set aside the order passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in so far as apportionment is concerned and to make the apportionment afresh in the appeal.

¶22

5. Considering the fact that the first appellant is no other than the

¶23

grand mother of the deceased and she has to maintain the appellants 2 and 3 who are her grandchildren, the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in so far as apportionment of compensation is modified as follows

¶24

¶25

(i) the claimant No.1 is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,30,000=00 and she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of her share.

¶26

(ii) the claimants 2 and 3 are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,50,000=00 each and their share amount shall be

¶27

invested in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain majority.

¶28

6. However, the first claimant, who is the grandmother of the claimants 2 and 3 is permitted to withdraw the interest periodically accrued on the fixed deposit of the minor claimants 2 and 3 till they attain majority to enable her to maintain them.

¶29

7. With the above modification as indicated regarding the apportionment of compensation, MACMA.MP.No. 5091 of 2011 and the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

-------------------------------------JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO. 10/07/2012 I s L * N B : Furnish CC of the judgment in one week.

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶32

MACMA.MP.NO. 5091 OF 2011 AND MACMA.No. 3108 OF 2011

¶33

Circulation No. Date:10/07/2012 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43

Edla Sarojana v. Rongala Balaraju , Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edla Sarojana v. Rongala Balaraju , Raju

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

S.Janardhan Reddy Vs M/s. Airan Contrax Towers Pvt. Ltd.

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs Putta Chandrasekhar Reddi

The Md. Apsrtc. Msrd. Hyd Vs Gunda Ramakrishna Reddi , Ramakrishnaandan

D. Sayamma, Vs M/s. Ranga Apparels Limited

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Badavath Tirupathi and 5 Others

Kolanu Sathya Narayana Vs M. Venkanna