Disposed

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

Telangana HC7 Sept 2022CMA/95/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by an insurance company against a compensation award. The matter was referred to a Lok Adalat where the appellant withdrew the appeal, resulting in the confirmation of the compensation order and dismissal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn; compensation order confirmed; directed to pay amount and interest within one month.

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Jinukala… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR-TfiE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TW;^''--"

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL NO: 95 oF 2020

¶6

Appeal Under Section 30 of Workman,s Compensation Act E.C.No. g3 of 2017 dated 14-10-2019 on the fire of thl 60mmissioner for Emproyees compe,sation and Deouty. commissioner oi i"ul'r, _ r, Karmika samkshema Bhavan, RTC Cross Road,' Hyderabacl.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Reliance General lnsurance Co.Ltd., rep. by its Manager, D.No.4-1_327 to 337, Sagar^ptaza Comptex, nbids, HyJellb;5.^{"' '} "'""'

¶9

...APPELLANT(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

Jinukala Komala, Wo. late Swamy, age 2Z years, Occ. Housewife. native of H No'7-72, Aroor viraoe, vargonoa M;nar. rirrg""o, diskict, presenry Rio.

¶12

^^{11 No 11-3-545, Chitkitguda, becunderabad -}

¶13

Jinukala Manish, S/o. iate.Swamy, ,g".BJ"rr., Occ.Nil. (Minor). native of H'No'7-77, Aroor viraoe, Varigonia il,,'"anar.'rrrrigt"o, district, presenfly R/o.

¶14

^^{H.No. 11-3-545,Chilkaiguda,Secunderabad.-}

¶15

Jlnukala Karthik yadav, plo tlt: Swamy,aje.4 years, Occ.Nit. (Minor). native of H No T-77, Aroor Virage, Varigonda Mindr.'t'ratgonoa olrtli.i, pi"."rtrv R/o. H.No rl_e_s+sl cnirtargidr, Secunderabad. (Respondent Nos.2 and 3 being ,inorc u. op'.'"U], tnui, Mother and natural guardian, the - respondent No.1 - il;;;;j

¶16

All are native of H.No.7-77, nroor viriage, Varigonda Mandr. Nargonda district, Presentty Rio. H. No. 1 1 -3-545, Chirkaig;a, SJJu riJeranaa.

¶17

... Respondents/Applicants

¶18

Jinukala Mallaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, Age 60 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o_ Aroor Village, Valigonda Mandat, Naigonda^{"Disir;"i.- "} -

¶19

...RespondenUOpposite par.ty No.1

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. T. MAHENDER RAO

¶21

Gounsel for the Respondents: C. MOHAN PRAKASH

¶22

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶23

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SAMBASTVA RAO trt.r\IDU

¶24

C.M.A. No.95 OF 2020

¶25

JUDGMENT:

¶26

This appeal is filed by the appellant/opposi re parry No.2 _ Reiiance Ge reral Insurance Company Limite(t against the respondents ;eeking to set aside the order, dat,:cl 14.i0.2019, passed in E. l.No.83 l2OlT by the Commissioner for llmployees Compensatior and Deputy Commissioner of Labour _ I At Hyderabad, v herein, the Court below granted corrpensation of Rs.8,27,448/- in favour of respondents _ claimants.

¶27

H:ard.^perused the record. 3. At request of learned counsel f<rr tht. parties, this Court vlde orler, dated 24.06.2022, has refcrred l.he appeal to Lok Adalat. C n 26.06.2022, the matter was settle{:l before the Lok Adaiat anrl an Award was passed to that etiect.

¶28

In view of the above said Award, I hc appeal is disposed of. R egistry is directed to enclose a copy of the Award, dated 26.06.2('22 passed by the Lok Adalat to this o;.rler.

¶29

Miscella: reous petitions, if any, pending in this ;rppeal shall stand closed. 'lhere shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

¶31

Sri,'. B.{i. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ C;p SEI]TION OFFICER

¶32

To,

¶33

The Comrnis;ioner for Employees Compensation an( [.)epJty Commissioncr-of Labour - l, Karmika Samkshema Blr.avan, RTC Cross Road. Hyder rbad. (with records)

¶34

Cne CC rr^S 11. T. MAHENDER RAC,,q,Cvocdte, [OPUr]l

¶35

¶36

One CC to SRt. C. MOHAN PRAKASH, Advocate tOpUCl \ a. Two CD Copies \ Along with a copy of Lok Adalath award. PSR EVt

------:-......-

HIGH COUF T

DATED:0710912022

I /

JUDGMEI.IT

CMA.No.95 (,f 2020

\ HE STAi
a
c,
? 1 FEE ?0?l '

¶45

DISPOSING C)F THE CMA IN TERMS OF AWARD OF LOK ADALATH WITHOUT COSTS,

"#'*"

l-op-

AJe-{-^f J)trod

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT H|GH COURT LEGAL SERVTCES COMr!^ITTEE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD.

¶51

¶52

[Under^Seclion t^g ol lhe Legql Services Authorilies Acl, l9g7 (Centrol Acl)l Date:26-0 6-2022

¶53

Present:1 . Hon,ble Dr. Justice G.yethirajulu (Former Judge of erstwhite Hon,ble Hjgh Court of Andhra^pradesh) COMi,r 2. Sri K.Vasanth Rao, Advocate, Member .e 3. Smt.K.Man.i Deepika, Advocate, c, Member Cl,lA.No.95 of 2020 fP. (Before the Hon'ble High Court)the Hon'ble High Court)High Court)Court)

¶54

(Before the Hon'ble High Court)the Hon'ble High Court)High Court)Court)

¶55

AGAINST

¶56

E.C.No.83 of ZO1 7 (On the fite of Commissf-nei?oiEmf,t,cfes, Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-l: T.Anjaiah Karmika SurtIn"rl'snurunum, RTC Cross Roads: Hyderabad)

¶57

Between:

¶58

Retiance Genera[ lnsurance Co. Ltd., rep.by its Manger, D.No. 4-1-327 to 337, Sagar Ptaza Comptex, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶59

..-Appettant/ Opposite Party No.2. AND 1. Jinukata Komata, W/o. tut" S*".y, age: 27 years, Occ: Housewife. 2. Jinukata Atanish, S/o. tate Swamy, _^{age: 8 years, Occ: Nit. (Minor).} 3. Jinukata;Karthik yadav, S/o. iate Swamy, age:.4 years, Occ: Nit. (Minor). (Respondent Nos. 2 & I being minors are rep. by their Mother and naturaI guardian, the respondent No. t trerein; Att are native of H.No.7-77, Aroor Vittage, Vatigonda Mandat, Natgonda district, presently RU-o.'N.ml t t _:_S<S, Chitkatguda, Secunderabad.

¶60

.... Respondents/ 4. Jinukata Mattaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, Appticants Age: 60 years, Occ: Agricutture, R/o. Aroor Vittage, Vatigonda Mandat, Natgonda District. ...Respondent/ Opposite Party No.1 W)@ I r@ Y)

¶61

lr lr

¶62

AWARD

¶63

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

¶64

The Ledrned Cot nsel for the Appettant/ lnsurance Company reprrsonted^that the lnsurance Cc npany is withdrawing the appeal fited by it.

¶65

The said represe rtation is recorded and the appeal is dismissed a; \n'ith(lrawn, confirming the c^'der of the Commissioner for Emptoyees Comp:nsation and Deputy Commiss oner of Labour-1, Hyderabad. The amount if a,l/ remaining unpaid to the cli imant(s) shatt be^paid by the lnsurance Compar)^\vithin one month from the late of receipt of the award, atong with^{rnteres .}

¶66

The Respondent ;/ Petitioners are permitted to withdraw thejr^-espective shares as^per th ) apportionment and orders made by the Comrrilsioner for Emp[oyees' Com )ensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-|, H^yderabad.

¶67

This Award shatl be subject to verification of cross appeal/cross objection, if any, fited by thr Respondents, otherwise the parties are at [ib(x-ty to appty -. for recatl of this Crder/Award.

¶68

Court fee^paid orr this appeal shatl be refunded.

¶69

No costs.

¶70

¶71

I lnsuranc€ Co Ltd'
For Rel
Authorised Si3natory
Appettant/Opposite Party No,2
lnsurance Company l
fYt)
h"^lV
CHAIRru it
It:,(BER
(s

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

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

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

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