Partly allowed

Addl. Asst. Engineer v. Peddi Mallakka

Telangana HC16 Sept 2022SA/263/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana partly allowed a second appeal against a civil decree. While confirming the compensation and liability, the court held that the 12% interest awarded during the suit's pendency was perverse because it exceeded the reasonable rate based on RBI guidelines, reducing it to 7.5%. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Interest during pendency of suit reduced from 12% p.a. to 7.5% p.a.; compensation and liability confirmed; no costs.

Addl. Asst. Engineer Vs Peddi Mallakka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN SECOND APPEAL NO: 263 OF 2022

¶6

Appeal Under Section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 30-08-20'l8madeinA.S.No.53of201B onthefileoftheCourtofthelll Additional District Judge at Asifabad, Preferred against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.1B ol 2011 Dated 18109/2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Addl. Asst. Engineer, AP/TSNPDCL (Rural) Bemmampally.

¶9

The Divisional Engineer, TSNPDCL, Kagaznagar.

¶10

The Superintending Engineer, TSNPDCL, Adilabad.

¶11

The Chief Executive Engineer, TSNPDCL, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶12

...APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS No. 1 to 4

¶13

AND

¶14

'1. Peddi Mallakka, Wo. Late Peddi Bheeraiah, Aged 45 years, Occ. Household.

¶15

Peddi Sumalatha, D/o. Peddi Bheeraiah, Aged 25 years, Occ. Household.

¶16

Peddi Rajitha, D/o. Peddi Bheeraiah, Aged 23 years, Occ. Household.

¶17

PeddiAnjanna, S/o. Peddi Bheeraiah, Aged 21 years,

¶18

Peddi Kumar, S/o peddi bheeraiah aged 19 years,

¶19

All are R/o Veegone Village, Mdl Bheemini District, Mancherial.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS No. 1 to S/PLAINTIFFS

¶21

The District Collector, Mancherial, District Mancherial

¶22

...RESPONDENT No. G/DEFENDANT No. 5

¶23

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI ZAKIR ALI DANISH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI c. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶24

,--:---------7

¶25

¶26

'I'Ii E IIC),r.-'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAX \t AN

¶27

SIiCOND AI'PEAL No.263 Ol'2t)2:

¶28

JUDGXIENl':

¶29

The pres( nt appeal has been directed agair,st .;ud6gner,.t and decree dated 30.08.20 8 passed in A.S.No.53 of 20lE by^tfrt: III^Additional District Judge, ,\sifabad, wherein and whereby the^{jud5ir.nentand decree} dt. 18.09.2017 prssed in O.S.No.18 of 2011 by^{the S,:nLorClivil Judge,} Asifabad, I{yderabad was confirmed. The said suit^'*as filed by^the respondenls her:in tbr compensation of^{Rs.6,00.000/-u'ith interest and} the suit was dec'eed. ln the appeal,^{it was confimred. l lit.,nct:,the present} Second Appeal.

¶30

The presr nt Second Appeal is at the instance il' th,; defendants No. 1 to 4.^'l'h,, respondents herein are^{plaintifls, antl defcndantNo.5} For convenienc(, thr: ranks of the^parties as they^{rvere r:fi:ned in the suit,} is maintained.

¶31

1'he pres,:nt appeal has been filed aggrieved lry the concurrent hndings ol'both the Courts below on the ground of^pen elsitv with regard negligence and. quantutn of compensation, apart liorr interest aspect. However', I do rot find any perversity with regard to neg,)igence since the liability is basrd on strict Iiabiiity, no need ol'plor1. of negligence.

¶32

¶33

2 ML,J SA No.263 of 2022

¶34

Further, fixation of quantum of amount also does not suffcr from any peryersity.

¶35

4 The following substantial question of law is framed: Whether the findings of both Courts below in granting l2%o interest from the date ofsuit till date of decree suffers from perversity?

¶36

5 It is opt to refer Section 34 of code of civir procedure which reads as follows:

¶37

"34. Interest (l) Where and in so lar as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree order interest to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date orthe suit to the date ofdecree at a rate not .^{exceeding twelve} .percent^{per amum, in addition} to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any periJ prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at .u"h'rot" not exceeding twelve percei-,t per anmrm as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date ofthe 100 decree to the date oi puyrn"r, o, to such eariier date as the Court deems fit:

¶38

Provided that where the liability in relatiot to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed twelve percent., per annum, but shall not exceed the contract rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which monies are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions.

¶39

A reading ofthe above proviso would show that pending the suit, the court has discretion to award a reasonable ir.rterest in addition to any

¶40

interest granted prior to the suit on the principal amount. However, such

¶41

powers are restricted to 6%o p.a. from the date of decree till realization if It ls not contl'actual interest.

¶42

J ML,JSA No.263 of 2022

¶43

I I

¶44

¶45

In the pr )sc'nt case, the trial Court adopted inlerrst @ 12% p.a. and the same rvas r onfirmed in the appeal. While grantir t1: interest pending the suit, both the Coufts have not assigned any reason lor adopting interest @:1, l2o/, p.zL. When a discretion is git.en to awaid reasonable interest, the di:,cretion should not be reasonsless and should not suffer from unreasone bleness. The ge,neral rule is that rvhile 1i xinrS interest, the lending rate ol' Reserve Bank of India has to be taken into c;onsideration. The lending ra e prevailing when the suit was decret.rl is not indicated and the tlxatior. rvas done without reference as to wh tt was the iending rate fixed by th,: Reserve Bank of India at the relevant l),lint ,rf time.

¶46

As per t. re guidelines of 2017 when the decree was passed, the lending rate wi s 7 .5o/o p.a. Therefore, the intelesl d,rrjng pendency of suit should be^".5o/o p.a. but not 12Yo p.a. as fixed by the Oourts below. To the above ex tent there is perversity of findings by br,rl'r Courts.

¶47

Accordin 3ly, the appeal is partly allowed as follorv;:

¶48

i) The fix rtion of compensation and liability is cc ntlrmed.

¶49

ii) The in erest during pendency of suit is reduce(l l'ron 12Yo p.a. to

¶50

7 .SYo 1'.it. No costs

¶51

iii) I(est c f the findings are confirmed. The appellants are directed

¶52

10 dep osit the awarded a:nount with interest v,il hin three

¶53

4 ML,J SA No.263 of 2022

¶54

¶55

months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgmept, failing which, the respondents are at liberty to initiate contempt proceedings. The amount shall be deposited before the trial Court

¶56

to the credit of suit. No costs.

¶57

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶58

SD/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,1

¶59

To,

¶60

L, SEC TION OFFICER

¶61

The lll Additional District Judge at Asifabad (with records)

¶62

The Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad (with records)

¶63

One CC to SRI ZAKTR ALI DAN|SH, Advocate tOpUCl

¶64

One CC to SRI c. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate tOpUCI

¶65

Two CD Copies

.$sl

HIGH COUR'-

DATED: 1610)12022

1 T,E 'ffi::N
,<br>(
o 16 tEB 1t::t

¶71

ORDER

¶72

SA.No.263 of 2022

¶73

PARTLY ALL()WING THE SECOND Appri:,Al. WITHOUT COIiTS

¶74

¶75

[32{61

¶76

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶77

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶78

PRESENT

¶79

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶80

SECOND APPEAL NO: 263 0F 2022

¶81

Between:

¶82

'1. Addl. Asst. Engineer, AP/TSNPDCL (Rural) Bemmampally.

¶83

The Divisional Engineer, TSNPDCL, Kagaznagar.

¶84

The Superintending Engineer, TSNPDCL, Adilabad.

¶85

The Chief Executive Engineer, TSNPDCL, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶86

...APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS No. 1 to 4

¶87

AND

¶88

Peddi Mallakka, Wo. Late Peddi Bheeraiah, Aged 45 years, Occ. Household 2. Peddi Sumalatha, D/o. Peddi Bheeraiah, Aged 25 years, Occ. Household. 3. Peddi Rajitha, D/o. Peddi Bheeraiah, Aged 23 years, Occ. Household. 4. Peddi Anjanna, S/o Peddi Bheeraiah, Aged 21 years, 5. Peddi Kumar, S/o peddi bheeraiah aged^.19 years, Ail are R/o Veegone Village, Mdl Bheemini Diskict, Mancherial.

¶89

...RESPONDENTS No. 1 to S/PLA|NTtFFS

¶90

The District Collector, Mancherial, District Mancherial

¶91

...RESPONDENT No. 6/DEFENDANT No. S

¶92

Appeal Under Section 100 of C.p.C against the Judgment and Decree of the court of the lll Additional District Judge at Asifabad in A.s.No. 53 of 2018 Dated 30-08-2018, preferred against the Judgment and Decree of the court of the senior Civil Judge, Asifabad in O.S.No.18 of 201 1 Dated 18.09..2007.

¶93

DECREE: This Second Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the Judgments and Decree of the Lower Appellant court and the court of the First instance and the material papers in the suit and upon

¶94

¶95

¶96

hearing the argume rts of sri. Zakt Ali Danish, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri. G. Madhusudhar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No i

¶97

This Court Doth Orde r and Decree as Follows:

¶98

That the Seco rd Appeal be and hereby is allowed;

¶99

That the fixatic n of compensation and liability be and hereh,y is confirmed;

¶100

That the intere st during pendency of suit be and hereby is reduced from 12o/o p.a to 7 .5o/o p.. ;

¶101

That the app*llants be and hereby are directed to ieposit the awarded amount with ir terest within three months from the date o" receipt of copy of this judgment, failing which the respondents are at libery to initiate contempt proceedings;

¶102

That the amou rt shall be deposited before the Triar cour:b the credit of suit;

¶103

That the rest o the findings be and hereby are confirmed; and

¶104

That there shai be no order as to costs.

¶105

SE /-13.S.CHIRANJEEVI .Jf,INT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECrrJr.r OFFICER

To,

The lll Additiorral District Judge at Asifabad.

¶110

The Senior Civ I Judge, Asifabad.

¶111

Two CD Copier;

t\s'

HIGH COUR'-

DATED: 1610912022

DECREE

SA.No.263 o12022

PARTLY ALLCWING THE SECOND APF'[:AL WITHOUT CC STS

¶119

tr>3 5{&

Addl. Asst. Engineer v. Peddi Mallakka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Addl. Asst. Engineer v. Peddi Mallakka

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

Allam Mukundam Vs Vinod Chary (Died) per LRs and 3 others

Kandula Guravaiah Vs Buddin Chandramouli

Kandula Guravaiah Vs Buddi Chandramouli

Khaja Naseeruddin, Vs Syed Abdul Rab , Arshad Mehta

Iqbal Hussain Vs B.Appa Rao

Mohd Faheemuddin Hyderabad Vs Mahavir Pershad and 5