Disposed

Smt.P.Aruna and 3 Ors. v. K.Ramulu and Anr.

Telangana HC22 Mar 2022MACMA/815/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act settled the appellant's appeal against an insurance company judgment on a monetary claim. The Tribunal's award of Rs. 8,66,700 was validated, with the company agreeing to an additional deposit of Rs. 18,00,000 for a final settlement within one month, failing which higher interest would apply. The matter was disposed of based on th

What did the court decide?

The lower court award of Rs. 8,66,700 with interest at 7.5% p.a. was certified; the insurance company was directed to deposit an additional Rs. 18,00,000 within one month, failing which interest at 12

Smt.P.Aruna and 3 Ors. Vs K.Ramulu and Anr. — Telangana HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENT

.a^,ltl '.

THE'HONOURABLE JUSTICE G, SRI DEVI

¶8

M.A.C.M.A.No.81 5 of 2008

¶9

peal Undei Sijction 173 of M.V. Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.09.2007 in O.P.No.2317 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

1 Smt. P. Aruna, W/o.late Dr.l\rluralikrishna, aged 38 years, Occ: Household

¶12

2 P.Swathi, D/o.late Dr.lvluralikrishna, aged 19 years, Occ: Student

¶13

a P.Satish Kumar, S/o.late Dr. [/uralikrishna, aged 17 years, Occ: Student

¶14

4 P.Santosh Kumar, S/o.late Dr. lVluralikrishna, aged 15 years, Occ: Student [P3&4^{being minors,rep. throughtheir natural motherandnext friendi.e.,} Petitioner No. t hereinl

¶15

,,;':'^{r"l.r.:Allare Fl/o.H.No.1-96, KeeasaraVillage & Mandal,Ranga ReddyDistrict} . r.. .*-r Now R/o.H.No.3-4-5/C/21, 1't,ff i

¶16

...Appellants/Petitiqners

¶17

.Ramulu, Slo.K.Hanumaiah, Aged Major, Occ: Business Fl/o.Annapurna olony, Mallikarjuna Temple, Boduppal, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Rqddy istrict.

¶18

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, rep by its Divisional Manager 0/o.608, 609, 6th Floor, White House, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶19

...Responderits/Respondents

¶20

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the^judgment and decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon liearing the arguments of Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the bllant and of Sri Rama chandra Reddy Gadi, Advocate forthe Respondent No.2.

¶21

i i6d the fo : JUDGMENT

¶22

¶23

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

¶24

M.A.C.M.A.No. 815 of 2008

¶25

JUDGMENT:.

¶26

Pursuanl to the request made by the Counsel appearing for both the parties, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. On 11.17.2021 the matter was settted before the Lok Adatat and an award was passed by the Lok Adatath.

¶27

ln view of the above, the M.A.C.M.A. is disposed of in terms of the award, dated 11.1?..2021, passed by the Lok Adatat. There shatl be no order as to costs.

¶28

Miscettaneous applications, if any, pending shalt stand

¶29

cIosed.

¶30

I I

¶31

//TRUE COPY//

¶32

SD/.T.TIRUMALA^DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶33

¶34

SECTION OFFICER

¶35

'1. The lll Additional Chief Judge. City Civil Court at Hyderabad' Z. One CC to Sri P Ramakrishna^{Reddv,Advocate} tOPqql - a. d; CC to Sri^{RamachandraReddyGadi, Advocate [OPUC]} 4. Two CD Copies 5. One Spare CoPY' gbr

$v"

HIGH COURT

D:2210312022

MENT

MA.No.815 of 2008

{HE SIA rA:
\ o:--t
))
) 2
1 Jff{ 208 j''I
.,t
"ATrl:

'ill
MACMA

;..

fi, ifl l1 . llrlil ii

li # li fr I

I L !

lJi

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

¶56

[Under^{Seclionl9 of the tegolServices Authorilies} Acl, 1987^(Cenkol Acl)l

Date: 11-12-2021

R1^LE

Present: 1, Hon'ble Dr. Justice c,Yethirajulu,

¶61

(Former Judge, High Court of erstwhite Andhra pradesh) Chairman

¶62

Dr.J.Vijaya Lakshmi, Advocate, Member

¶63

Sri M.Venkatramana Yadav, Advocate, Member

¶64

MACMA No. 815 of 2008

¶65

(Before the Hon'ble High Court) AGAINST

¶66

¶67

O.P.No. 2317 of 2005

¶68

(On the fite of the lll Additionat Chief Judge

¶69

: City Civit Court : Hyderabad :)

¶70

Between;-

¶71

Smt. P.Aruna, W/o. Late Dr. Muralikrishna,

¶72

¶73

aged: 38 years, Occ: Househotd,

¶74

P.Swathi, D/o. Late Dr. Muratikrishna

¶75

aged: 19 years, Occ: Student,

¶76

l. P.Satish Kumar, S/o. Late Dr.Murahkrishna aged: 17^years, Occ: Student,

¶77

P.Santosh Kumar, S/o. Late Dr.Muratikrishna aged; 15^years, Occ: Student,

¶78

(Petitioners 3 and 4 being minors, rep. through their naturat mother and next best

¶79

friend i.e., the petitioner No.1 herein)

¶80

At[ are Residents of H.No.1-96,

¶81

Keesara Viltage and Mandat,

¶82

Ranga Reddy District,^presentty

¶83

resident of H.No-3-4-5lC/21 ,

¶84

Nimbotiadda, Hyderabad.

¶85

....APPellants/Petitioners

¶86

i i, I I I I I i

¶87

And

¶88

K.Ramutu, S/o. K. Hanumaiah

¶89

age: Major, Occ: Business,

¶90

' Resident of Ptot No.19'1,

¶91

Annapurna Cotony, Mattikarjuna^Tempte,

¶92

Boduppat, Ghatkesar Mandat, Ranga Reddy District.

¶93

The Bajaj Attianz Generat^{lnsurance Company Limited,} reptd. by it!'Divisiona[ Manager,

¶94

I I I I

¶95

608, 609, 6th floor, White House,

¶96

Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶97

.... ResPondents/ResPondents

¶98

Counsel for Appe ttan ts / Petitioners^{: Sri P.RamaKrishna Reddy, Ad}

¶99

Counsel for Respondent^{No.2/lnsuranceCompany:} fir w

¶100

/ n

¶101

¶102

This appeat having been referred for setttement before this Lok Adatat ahd after hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and also the parties, the fottowing award is passed:

¶103

AWARD

¶104

CompensationAwardedbythe Tribuna[/LowerCourt.	Rs.8,66,700/-(RupeesEight[akhssixty sixthousand seven hundredoilty)with costs andinterest@7,5%perannumfrom thedateofpetitiontitlthedateof reatization.
a N^SE,g :.:;artcouRT !ri;-rtl ADAL{T Compensation Awarded (SetttementReached)in the LokAdatat.	ln additiontotheamount awarded before theTribunat,Rs.18,00,000/-(Rupees Ejghteentakhsonty)to bepaid/ depositedby thelnsuranceCompany towardsfutlandfinalsetttement, within onemonthfromthedateofreceiptof copyoftheAward.lntheeventof defautt ordetayinmaking such deposit, theamount payable shat[carryinterest at12%perannumfromthedateof defautt.
ApportionmentofComp€'nsation, ifany I I	I^{O.suchdeposit,theAppettants/} I Petitioners No.1to4areentitledtheir 1^{respectivesharesas perthe} lapportionment^{madebytheTribunat/} ILo*e..court.

¶105

¶106

Additio nal Direction^(s):

¶107

The Appettants are entitted to the refund of Court Fee paid on this

¶108

,. il:"::"rr, atready deposited by the tnsurance company snatt ue^given credit to.

¶109

The Appettants/ Petitioners No.1 & 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares and the Appeltants/Petitioners No.3 & 4 are permitted to ,yithdraw their respective shares after attaining the age of majority.

¶110

ln token.of consent for the above settlement and award, the parties and their counsel have signed this award in our^presence.

¶111

ln terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this stands disposed of. @^syry 8\

¶112

'1
j
I
I
I
t.
t
I

¶113

I
(L No- tol
n
ResPondent (s )
t
Petitioner (s)
!i
l) ?.ooa,a ir
&*a' For 33jai Allianz General urance Co Ltd \i
Aulhoris SignatorY ti
p% lr
I
T-@+
I
<br>ndent s
P, for Petitioner ( s ) Cou nsel for
Counsel
r^L 1
cu Member i
r
M
Chair
<br>I
I
I
B1 LE I
Date: l1'12'2021 II
j
I
1
? II
tl,.
I
mittee)
(Seal
I

¶114

Smt.P.Aruna and 3 Ors. v. K.Ramulu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.P.Aruna and 3 Ors. v. K.Ramulu and Anr.

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

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Vs Poloju Narshimha Chary and Anr.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Vs Rampalli Omkaram and Anr.

Syed Ahamed Vs Jaidi Pedda Ganga Reddy

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Rahana Begu

Smt Gousiya Begum R/O Balkonda, Nizamabad Dist Vs B. Ramesh and 2 Others

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs E.Niranjan [Died and 3 Ors.