Disposed

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Smt. Afsar Taslin and 5 Others

Telangana HC8 Apr 2021CMA/979/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of an appeal preferring under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Court noted that the dispute between the parties was settled before the Lok Adalat, with an award passed on 20.02.2021. Consequently, nothing survived in the appeal, which was closed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is closed as the dispute was settled via a Lok Adalat award.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR-T+IE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

rHE HoNouRABLE sRtitLTEIlr^LLA KoDANDA RAM

¶4

C.M.A. NO: 979 OF 2012

¶5

Appear under Section 30 0f w.c.Act, against the Judgment in w.c.No.94 0f 2011 dated 25106120'12 0n the fire of the court of the commissioner for Emproyees Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour_1, at Hyderabad.

¶6

Between:

¶7

RELIANCE GENERAL TNSURANCE cotupANy LTD., Rep. by its Regionar 4"'Floor, Sagar Plaza, Abids, HyderJb;J 'r/anager ...AppELLANT/2NooppostrE pARTy AND

¶8

SIVT. AFSAR TASLIN, W/o. Late lVohd. Habib ? ?pOy^{R99hamg, D/o. Late lr,4ohd.Habibaged about7 years} 3. Master Mohd. Hussain, S/o. Late lVohd. l-iabib aged a'bout 5 years a. FjOV Simran Fatima, D/o. Late lMohd. Habib agei about 3 ydars

¶9

_^{(Respondents2 to 4 ale.rep by their mother1s Respondentherein)} 5. Smt. Mahaboob Bee, W/o. tMahtab Sob (Respondents 1 to 5 are R/o. Uppal, Hyderabad)

¶10

. . .. Respondents/ Applicants

¶11

Mustafa lr/ohammad, S/o.M astan SabiOwner of the Vehicle bearing No. AP 2BIC 0927 Plot No.B, D harg h l,ilir lttlahmood Pahadi Rajendra Nagar, Rangareddy District

¶12

. ...RESPONDENT/1ST OPPOSITE PARry

¶13

For the Appellant : SRI K.AJAY KUMAR, Advocate

¶14

For the Respondents : SRI LGOPAL REDDY, Advocate

¶15

The Court delivered the following: JUDGTVENT

¶16

¶17

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDARAM}

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal^{is filed againstthe order dated 25 06'2012 passed by} the Commissioner,^{Workmen's Compensation, in W'C'No'94 of 2077'}

¶20

As per the Office^{report, the dispute betweenthe parties is settled} before the Lok^{Adalat and, as a matter of fact, an Awarddated} 20.02.2027 has also been^{passed. A copy of the Award passed by the} Lok Adalat is also^placed on^{record.In the light of the same,nothing} survives in the appeal,

¶21

lV iscella neous Accordingly, the appeal is closed. No^costs,

¶22

petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

¶23

Sd/-K.SREENIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPYII Go

¶24

SECTION OFFICER

¶25

¶26

The Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour -1, at Hyderabad.

¶27

One CC to Sri K.Ajay Kumar, Advocate (OPUC)

¶28

One CC to Sri LGopal Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

¶29

Two CD Copies

¶30

(along with a copy of the award)

Kj.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810412021

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.979 of 2012

1HE SI4 14.
o
o 01 MAY 2021
cl
'. 7-
r.
*
D
4.TCH

CLOSING THE APPEAL.

u,r^ctl

BEFORE THE tOK ADALAT

¶42

HEID AT HYDERABAD

¶43

[Orgonized^{by High CourlLegol Sewices} Committee High Court lor ,he Slote of Telongono

¶44

(Through Video Conference mode)

¶45

Under Sectlon I9 of lhe Legol Services Authorilies Act, I 987 (Cenhol Act)l

¶46

CMA No. 979 o12012

¶47

(Belore the Hon'ble High Courl)

¶48

(Against the Order in W.C.No. 94 of 7011 on the file of the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-|, at Hyderabad )

¶49

Appellont/Opposite Porly No.2 I Relionce Generol Insuronce Compony
Limited, Rep. by its Regionol Monoger , 4ih
floor, Sogor Plozo, Abids, Hyderobod.
I l
Respondents / Appliconls t. Srnt Afsor Toslin, W/o. Lote Mohd. Hobib,
Agedi 27 yeors, Occ: Housewife.
I 2 Boby Roshomo, D/o. Lole Mohd. Hobib,
z-ffi.. Aged: 7 yeors.
o ,5' 3. Moster Mohd. Hussoin, S/o. Lote Mohd
Hobib, Aqed: 5 yeors.
COURT 4 Boby Simron Folimo, D/o. Lote Mohd. Hobib.
IGH
o{ ADl.Lf''t Aged: 3 yeors,
c I Respondents 2lo 4 ore represented by their
mother lst respondenl herein.
rl.:: t' ",1/ s. I smt Mohoboob Bee, w/o. Mohtob sob.
I Aged: Respondenls 5t yeors, I to Occ: 5 ore Housewife. residents of Uppol. l
Hydero bod.
R es po n d e nllO p p osile Porty Mustofo Mohommod, S/o. Moston Sob.
N o.'l Aged; not known to the oppellont, Owner of
the vehicle beoring No. AP-28TC-0927. Rlo.
Plot No.8, dhorgh. Mir Mohmood Pohodi,
I Ro endro No or, Ron o Redd Disfrict

¶50

[No.^{of proceedings of the High Court Legol} Services Commitiee: OR DER ROC.No. I 9 5 I IICLSC I 2021, Doted 30-0 l -202 1 l

¶51

:: Present ::

¶52

Nome of Choirmon

¶53

: Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Noveen Roo,

¶54

Judge, High Courl for the Slote of Telongono.

¶55

Nome of Members : (l) Sri Mettu Goverdhon Reddy, Advocote, High Court for the Stole of Telongono (2) Smt.P.Sujolho, Advocole, High Court for lhe Stole of Telongono.

¶56

AWARD

¶57

The obove Cose between the poriies hoving been referred for determinotion lo ihe LOK ADALAT ond the^porties hoving compromised the cose / molter, ihe following Aword is possed in terms of fhe seiilement:

¶58

I . This CMA orises out of the order doled 25-06-20] 2 in^w.C.No.94 of 201 I on ihe file of Commissioner Employee's Compensotion^ond Deputy Commissioner of Lobour-|, ot Hyderobod.

¶59

The Commissioner for Employee's Compensolion ond Deputy
Commissioner of Lobour-l, of Hyderobod, hos gronled
r.( cJI
5i-ll-

¶60

compensotionotRs.5,45,622/-(RupeesFivelokhsforlyfivethousond six hundred ond^{twenty two only) with interesi 12% per onnum from} the dote of cloim^{petitlontill its reolizotionAggrieved by the order'} lhe lnsuronce Compony^{hos preferredthis oppeol'}

¶61

uf/

¶62

The Appellont/Opposite^{Porty No.2/lnsuronceCompony} -^Relionce Generol lnsuronce^{ComponyLimited, representedby Sri J'Roiesh,} Monoger -Legol, hos represented^{before the virtuolLok Adolot by} ottending in the office of^{Secretory, High Court Legol Services} Committee, High Court^{for the Stote of Telongono.ln view of the} lotest Judgments of^{the Hon'ble Supreme Couri of Indio, NewDelhi,} ond in consultotion^{wilh the victim, the Appellont/lnsuronce} Compony intends io^{withdrow the oppeol. Accordingly, fhe} Appelloni is^{permitled io withdrow.}

¶63

ln view of the obove^{representotionmode on beholf of the} Appellont/lnsuronce^{Compony,the oppeolstonds disposedos} withdrown.

¶64

The lnsuronce Compgny^{is reody to deposit lhe remcrining} decreetol omount^{with occrued inlerest ofter givingdue credil to} the omount olreody^{deposited, within(30) doys from the dote of} receipt of coPY of^{this oword.}

¶65

The^porties ore^{informedthol the courl fee, if ony, poid by ony of} them sholl be refunded.

¶66

7 . No order os to ihe^{cosls of the oppeol.}

¶67

Appello ntlRespond ;fifnX1i3e[)ion:'nrv
lnsuronce Com n
')r4u[trr'
Choirmon M{mber
ll
,.r
rl*r
DoIe:20.02.2021 o
'*lG\
t 5r.
(se f ,the Cqft miitee)
't'
--t -. -:1

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Smt. Afsar Taslin and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Smt. Afsar Taslin and 5 Others

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

N.Jayaprada Vs Sri K.Jangireddy

Gudise Ratnaiah Vs Gudise Devaiah

Kashetti Chandraiah, And 2 Others Vs Kashetti Raji Reddy

N. Hemalatha and another Vs S.Madhava Rao and 10 others

Pasham Prudhvi Raj, And 6 Others Vs K. Padma, And 9 Others

N. Hemalatha and another Vs S.Madhava Rao and 8 others