Disposed

The National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Smt. Manthena Laxmi and 3 Others

Telangana HC7 Sept 2022CMA/251/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Compounded Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the National Insurance Company against a workmen compensation decree. This appeal was heard at a Lok Adalat where the appellant withdrew the appeal, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the lower order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of in terms of the Lok Adalat award made on 26.06.2022; the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn and the earlier compensation order stands confirmed.

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

t l

¶2

INTHE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 4

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶6

GIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 251 OF 2014

¶7

Appeal Under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act against the JudgmenUDecree in WC. No. 101 of 2010 Dated 20-09-2012 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner bf Labour lV Samkshema Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The National lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Chennai Trade Centre, Secunderabad.

¶10

...APPELLAN Tz"d OPPOSITE PARTY

¶11

AND

¶12

smt. Manthena Laxmi wo. Late M. swamy, Age 37 years, occ: Housewife

¶13

M. Ramesh S/o. Late M. Swamy, Age 17 years,Rl/o. Riyasatnagar, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad. (Rep. by mother Gardian R2 & R3 nature Gard'-ian R1)

¶14

M.Ravali D/o. Late M. Swamy, Age 16 years

¶15

All are R/o. Riyasatnagar, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad.

¶16

(Rep. by mother Gardian R2 & R3 nature Gardian Rl)

¶17

K. Veerabadra Rao,, S/o. Venkata Ramaiah, R/o. C-15,Klyani Kani, Mandamarry Ad ilabad District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRI. JONNA RAMANI, ADVOCATE

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1 to 3: Mr. S. SUDARSHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No 4: NONE APPEARED

¶22

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE^{SAMBASTVA RAO NAIDU}

¶25

c. A. No.25 1 0F 201⁴

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

This appeal is filed^{by the appellant/oppositeparty No.2 -} The National Insurance^{CompanyLimited against the respondents} seeking to set^{aside the order, dated 2O.O9.2O12,passed in} w.c.No. lol l2olo by^{thecommissioner forEmployees} compensation and^{Assistantcommissionerof Labour -IV At} Hyderabad, wherein, the^{Court below grantedcompensation of} Rs.4,84,O691- in favour^{of respondents - claimants'}

¶28

Heard. Perused the^record.

¶29

At request of learned^{counsel for the parties,this} court vid.e order, d.ated^{23.06.2022, has referred the appealto} Lok Adalat. On 26.06.2022,^{the matterwas settled before the} Lok Adalat and an Award^{was passedto that effect.}

¶30

In view of the above said^{Award, the appealis} disposed. of. Registry is^{directedto enclosea copy of the Award,} dated 26.06.2022^{passedby the Lok Adalat to this order.}

¶31

Miscellaneous Petitions,^if any,^{pending in this appeal shall} stand closed. There shall be no order as^{to costs.}

¶32

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO

To,

JOINT //TRUE COPYII ffgPJrSECTION OFFICER The Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant commissioner of Labour rv samkshema Bhavan, RTc X Roads, Hyderabad. (with records)

[toxAdatat^{Awardenclosed.} ) a^{One CC to SRl. JONNARAMANT Advocate} tOpUCl 3.^{One CC to SRl. S. SUDARSHAN} REDDY Advocate IOPUCJ CD Copies \rwo VHw

t !

HIGH COURT

SSRN, J

DATED: 07/0912022

ORDER

CMA.No.251 of 2014

-;',ii: tiT;tt ,'+-
ii
'<br>1ls
q
:...
'3 ol APn2o23
.t
j<br>(i '!.'t.. 4.

¶50

Disposing of the CMA in terms Of award of LokAdalat without costs

¶51

t\ zg
<br>\q $.,{-

¶52

'{-Dk A{oie{/k^rta,{

¶53

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD.

¶54

? J ,i

¶55

lunder^section l ? oi rhe r.egor Services Authoriries Act, r ?87 (cenfror Act)t Date:26-O6-2027

¶56

:n
tl't
'.'i:it',':'l^il"i

¶57

Present:1. Hon'ble Sri Justice Sambasivarao Naidu, (Judge, High Court for the State of Tetangana) 2. Sri Dominic lvtario Fernandes, Advocate, Member

¶58

Smt.K.Sravya, Advocate, Member

¶59

CMA.No.2 1 of 2014

¶60

(Before the Hon'ble High Court) AGAINST

¶61

W.C.No. 1 of 2O1O

¶62

(On the fite of the Commissioner for Emptoyees, Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour - lV: T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan: R.T.C.^,X 'Roads, Hyderabad)

¶63

: Between:

¶64

The National lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Chennai Trade Centre, Secunderabad. "^{''''"t "r;i'r;;rirA}

¶65

...Appettant/2nd Opposite Party

¶66

AND

¶67

1)Smt. Manthena Laxmi, W/o.Late M.Swamy, Age 37 years, Occ: Housewife,

¶68

2)M. Ramesh S/o. Late M. Swamy, Age 17 years,

¶69

3)M. Ravati D/o. Late M.Swamy, Age 16 years,

¶70

At[ are R/o. Riyasatnagar, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad

¶71

(rep by mother guardian of

¶72

R2 and R3 natural guardian R1)

¶73

4)K.Veerabadra Rao S/o.Venkata Ramaiah, R/o.C-15, Ktyani kani, Mandamarry Aditabad District.

¶74

Respondents

¶75

AWARD

¶76

This is an appeal fited by the appettant/lnsurance Company.

bt'K
c{-.

,1 n 1

The Learned Counsel for the^{Appettant/lnsuranceCompanyrepresentedthat} the lnsurance Company^is withdrawing^{the appeal fitedby it.}

¶81

The said representation^{is recorded and theappeatis dismissedas withdrawn,} " confirming the order of the^{Commissionerfor Emptoyees' Compensation and} Assistant commissioner of^{Labour - lv, Hyderabad:The amountif any} remaining unpaid to the^{ctaimant(s) shatt be paid by the lnsurance company} within one month from^{the dateof receipt of the award,atong with interest'}

¶82

The Respondents/Petitioners^{are permittedto withdrawtheirrespective} shares as^per the apportionment^{and orders madeby the commissionerfor} Emptoyees' compensation^{and AssistantCommissionerof Labour -lV,} FJyderabad.

¶83

. 5. This Award shatt^{be subjectto verificationof crossappeat/cross objection,if} any, fited by the Respondents,^{otherwise the partiesare at tiberty to appty} for recatl of this Order/Award.

¶84

Court fee^{paid on this appeal shattbe refunded.}

¶85

No costs.

¶86

,t,nilf'S.ffi11ff*ffii
T---4"---\m,
Appettant/2nd OpPosite PartY
lnsurance
t.. ,
cHAnnm

¶87

¶88

SEII
*
ol

The National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Smt. Manthena Laxmi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Smt. Manthena Laxmi and 3 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

R. Ram Mohan Varma Vs Late B. Narsing Rao (died)

Shriram General Ins Comp Ltd, Hyderabad Vs Shaik Vaseema 3 Others

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Narlagala Manimala

Dubbala Vijayalakshmi Vs Pillendla saritha

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Jinukala Komala and 3 Others

The United India Insurance Company Ld., Vs Rathla Ramkoti and 4 Others