Partly allowed

Chairman Ap Transco. v. Hyd and Anr. v Maramulla Laxmi and 4 Ors.

Telangana HC10 Oct 2025AS/1970/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by the electricity board against a decree awarding Rs.85,000 for the death of a labourer by electrocution from fallen live wires; cross-objections by legal heirs seeking enhancement. The court held the board negligent, applied the Commission's ex-gratia order, and enhanced compensation to Rs.2,00,000 with 12% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs.2,00,000 with 12% interest from date of accident awarded to heirs: wife Rs.1,00,000; son Rs.50,000; each parent Rs.25,000; deposit within two months.

Chairman Ap Transco. vs. Hyd and Anr. Vs Maramulla… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁴³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶6

APPEAL SUIT NO: 1970 OF 2001 AND X-oBJECT|ONS NO. 1 0F 2025

¶7

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act and Memorandum of Cross Objections Under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C against the order and decree in O.P.No. 15 of^'1998 dated 25-04-2001 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, lvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad. Between:

¶8

The Chairman, APTRANSCO (APSEB), Vidyut Soudha, Hyd.

¶9

The Superinlending Engineer, APTRANSCO (APSEB), Operation Circle, Karimnagar.

¶10

...APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS

¶11

AND

¶12

Maramulla Laxmi Wo late Veeraswamy, aged 35 yrs, Occ: Household

¶13

Maramulla Rajakumar S/o Late Veeraswamy, aged 5 yrs, (Minor) under the Guardianship of Plaintiff No, f . i.e. Mother.

¶14

Maramulla Lasumaiah S/o Peddaiah. aged 60 yrs, Occ: Labour

¶15

Maramulla Boogamma Wo Lasumaiah, aged 55 yrs, Occ: Household

¶16

All are r/o Valbhapur village of Veenavanka Mandal, Karimnagar Dist.

¶17

The District Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dist.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

X-Obi. lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Between:

¶21

Maramulla Laxmi W/o late Veeraswamy, aged 38 yrs, Occ: Household

¶22

Maramullah Rajakumar S/o Late Veeraswamy, age 7 y. .. t,eing minor rep. by his mother and being minor and natural guardian i.e. 1s' r ,Jrellant

¶23

Maramulla Lasumaiah S/o Peddaiah, aged 62 yrs, Occ _ rbour

¶24

Ivlaramulla Boogamma W/o Lasmarah, aged 55 yrs, Occ iousehold

¶25

All are R/o Valbhapur Village of Veenavanka Mandal, Kz r nrnagar Dist.

¶26

...CROSS OBJEC.., )RyRESPoNDENTS

¶27

AND

¶28

The District Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dist

¶29

...RESPON ] :NT/RESPONDENT

¶30

The Chairman, A P.S.E.B., Vidyut Soudha, Hyd.

¶31

The Superintending Engineer, APTRANSCO (ApSEE ). Operation Circle, Karimnagar.

¶32

..APPELLAI TS/RESPONDENTS

¶33

Counsel for the Appellants and for the Respondents in Cross Objection Sri B. Pradeep re I Sri A. Chandra Shaker (Standing⁽ ounsel for NPDCL)

¶34

Counsel for the Respondents and for the Cross Objectors in Cross Objection: Sri Ajay Kumar Kr lkarni appearing on behalf of Sri tl Narasimha Sarma

¶35

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶36

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶37

A.S.No.197O of 2OO1 AND X-OB.IECTIOIIS tlo. I of 202s

¶38

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶39

The appeal suit is hlcd under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Appellant/ Defendnats against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, Karimnagar, (hereinafter referred to 'learned trial court') in O.S.No. l5 of 1998, dated 25.O4.2001.

¶40

For the sake of convenience, the parties u,ill be hereinafter referreci to as they are arrayed before the learned trial court

¶41

The brief facts of [he case are [hat the plaintiffs being the legal heirs of the deceased viz., Veerasu'ami, have tiled a suit for recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) with an inrerest of 18Ya per annum for the damages from the date of death of the deceased Veeraswamy from the defendants.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appcllant contended that the deceased on the intervening night of 27 128.10.1997 , at 2:00 a.m. was returning from

¶43

¶44

JVr&.JAS.No.1970 oF 2001 3.i^oEl.No.1 OF 2025

¶45

the cattie shed situated in front of his house after tying lre bulls in the cattle shed, suddenl1, the current wires with equipmcrt i.ell down from the pole and the deceased came in contact u,ith the I ve *,ire due to r'r4-rich he died on the spot. It is contended that il. cleath of the deceased rvas caused due to the negligence of the deft, L,lants who did not checked upon the said equipment and not properl rrxed the said electric wire, due to *'hich the deceased died and the , a.intiffs claimed for Rs.2,50,000/- for rhe damages.

¶46

5' Defendant No.2 i.e., the Department has rrred ur r.-ten statement denying the averments made in the plaint and corl:ndcd that the deceased died only due to his own negligence and in ,r.oper care and that it is also denied of the registering of the case by th: groricc. It is also denied that the defendants promised to pay the cornl cnsation to the plaintiffs and that the defendant No.2 is not lia t L: to pay any compensation as there was no negligence on their par-r. l)efencrant No.2 also denied about the income of the deceased and rL so the age and avocation of the deceased and therefore prayed to disrn r s; the appeal.

¶47

¶48

Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the

¶49

counsels, the learned trial court framed the follow,ing issues which read as under:

¶50

"i) Wtether the plaintilfs are entitled to sltit cleinr as praged for?

¶51

To what relrcP"

¶52

To substantiate their case, plaintiff No. I herself examined as pW I and also examined one Sathiri Kumaras,,r,amy as pW_2 and marked Ex.A- I & A-2. DW- 1 was examined on behalf of the defendant No.2.

¶53

B. After hearing both the counsel and considering the entire material placed, the learned trial court came to conclusion that defendants are iiable to pay the compensation as it is a crear case that the deceased died due to the negligence on the part of the defendants while fixing the pole wires, res,-rlting the crea-th of the cleceased due to electrocr,rtion a,nd also considering the income of the deccased @; Rs.SO/- per day and taken Rs. 1,500/- as monthly income and also taking lile expectancy, awarded an arnount of Rs.85,000/ to the plaintiffs with an interest @r 9Vo frorn the date of accident till the date of reahzation.

¶54

¶55

dla,l .4S.No.I 970 0F 2001 ,9 X-OBJ.No.l OF 2025

¶56

Being aggrieved by the said judgment anc decree, dated

¶57

25.04.2001, the present appeal is filed on the follou i r,g among other grounds contending that the learned trial court did rr ri consicler that there rvas no negligence on the part of the departmert^..vhile fixing the live wires on the pole and it is only the negligencr:^11' the derceased Further, the learned trial court ought to have seen that the cable u,ire is properly insulated and properly fitted to the pole at an., [)oint of time the u.ire can't be cut-off lrom the pole and there is no po;;'bility to get the electric shock with AB cable at middle portion as state c 11- the plaintiffs i irc usicl'rOI aie Seru lce W1l e USeU iOi iiiei-L Oi eiiefK-\ ,1u iaiieil On^-r.ile ground on 27.1O.1997, wherein the hear.y gale and u'ir J rvhich lallen on the deceased due to which he died, but not becr r s;e of coming 1n contact with the electricity wire passing as contended

¶58

[t is also contended that the equipment and^jr r rrlated cable wire u,as removed by opening of AB switch of DTR by r;, rne unauthorized persons who were involved in theft of enerry b)^,L:;ing de.,eriorated service '"vire and removed AB cable and httings at po1: location. as such, there is no possibility to^get the elect-ric shock with r Il cable at middle portion

¶59

¶60

lvim.J AS.I'1o.1970 OF 2OOl a. xaBJ. No. I OF 2025

¶61

The learned tria,l court ought to have seen that there is no proofof age and income of the deceased without considering these aspects have awarded t he compensation.

¶62

The Respondents/ Plaintiffs have a-lso hled X Objections No. 1 of 2025 being aggrieved by the meager compensation i.e., Rs.85,000/awarded by the trial court though they have claimed for Rs.2,50,000/-.

¶63

Learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiffs contended that it is a clear case that PW- 1 died due to the negligence of the electricity board resulting electric shock and erred in restricting the compensation of Rs.85,000/-. The learned trial court did not consider the income of the deceased @ Rs. 1O0/- per day in terms of the evidence of pW-2 and Ex.A-1. Further, the learned trial court ought to have taken the monthly income @ Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs, 1,000/ . Thc learned trial court erroneously decided the life expectancy ar the age of 54 and had taken the income of the deceased @ Rs.9,000/- per ycar instead of allowing the claim and awarding Rs.36,000/- per annum.

¶64

i4. i iea.r-d i'fi-.B,Prad.eeit, leai.le,j cuijitsel represenrinB i'v'lr.A. Cliatidra Shaker, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Ajag Kumq.r

H,I{R.J 4-$.^NoJ91L 91²⁹⁹¹ a x oBJ No.1 oj-2!25

¶69

Kutkarni,^{learneclcounsel appearing on behalf r'Mr.B.Nzrrsimha} Sarma, learned^{counsel lor the respondents'}

¶70

i5. Having^{heat-dthe rival contentions putforthon r ither side and on} perusal of^{records, the point for considerationbefore I .r s court is that:}

¶71

i . Wiether^{rhe respondents ore entitiedfor the enivtru:t'r cotnpensattotT?}

¶72

whether^{the ptcintiffshaue madeout ana case for r tterference tuith the} ftndings^{giuen bt1 the tial courl?}

¶73

¶74

1. Wheth.er^{lhrtre i-s anAnegligence on} I e part of op^{p e Lkt n t s / defen dants ?}

¶75

Whether^{the trail court hos rightlg auardedcompen; 'rion)}

¶76

whethcr^{the cotnpensationcan be anuarded bg folir uinq the notificatiort} issued^{b1l the Telangana State ElectricitgReqtr't tiruCorr' mission in} respect^{oJ' grartting ex-gratia?}

¶77

If so,^{to tuhot relief)}

¶78

Point No.3:

¶79

It is the^{case of the plaintiffs that fhe deceas:d died due to the} electrocution on^{the interveningnight of 27} 128.1(¹⁹⁹⁷ "r'hile^{he r'vas} returnillg lrom^{his cattle shed after tying the bullsr I the cattle shed ar-r d} get in contact v|ith the current^wire a]rld equipment^{I liich fell dou'n from} the pole and got in contact rvith the live u'ire^{ait r} t due to^{rvhich the}

¶80

! ttI

¶81

¶82

rYnlR.J AS.No,1970 OF 2OOj & X.OBJ.No. t OF 2O2s

¶83

current passed through by the deceased, as a result, the deceased died on the spot

¶84

17 . The main contention the plaintiffs that the deceased died due to the negligence on the part of the appellants/ defendants as they have not properly insulated and htted to the electric pole and the same is denied by the department contending that there is no negligence on the part of the department. It is stated by DW- 1 in his evidence that the wire which was fa,llen was duly insulated AB cable and it^\4.i11 not^give any shock to the body and someone has intentionally open the^AB cable kept at the spot. It is a-lso further stated by DW- 1 in his evidence that the distance between two electric poles is 70-80 meters and the dead body of the deceased was lying in the center of the tr.r'o^poles. though it is contended by DW- I that there is no possibility of lalling of wire exactly at the place of dead body, but in cross examination he has specifically admitted that he has not conducted any^panchnama at the scene of accident regarding the falling of the^vvire and to^{knou' u'hether} any pilferage of electricity.

¶85

¶86

I.INR.J As.tte.l919 OF^2Ool n X OBJ.No.1⁰⁸²⁹²⁵

¶87

1g. lt is aiso^{brougl-rt ro the notice of this court that a.: :ording to Rule} No.555 of the^{cocle of Safetl, Rules of APSEB,the inves.igation should} cove r the lollorving^aspccts:

¶88

The causc :ind^{the circumstancesunderu'tr:c Ithe} accidcnt occurred:

¶89

Whcther all the^{safety rules and precaut cnary} measurcs havc been^{observedand if not who} 'v:-c^all rcsPonsiblc^{lor thesame;}

¶90

Liability to^{pay compensation to the casualty:}

¶91

4 Any obscrvation or^{inferencewhich corlld he rl' r vrn lor} future guidzrnce.

¶92

lg. Considering the^{evidence ofPW-2 and DW} and aiso the postmortem report^{u'hich clearlyshorvsthat the caus'r c'f the death was} only due to the^{elt:ctrical shock, primafacie, on the fa(: of entirerecord} nhich clearly shorvs that^{the deceaseddied due tolectrocution and} Ivhich is not in clispr-rte^{by the defendants.The otr y factum is that} whether the said^{electrocutionu,as due to the selfne1.l 5;ence on the part} of the deceased or^{due lo the negligenceon the part r'the delendants} Though the DW-^{Idenied about the same, but inla< t itclearlyshows} that the deceased^{clicd ancl even as per the DW- 1 rlL, dead body of the} deceased was founcl near^{two electricai'pote wires ar< there is no denial}

¶93

¶94

dtE l 4q,e.l9!p^3!_294 &X:qBJ-Na 19I2o2s

¶95

that the equipment fixed to the pole was fell down and the edge oi the live n,ire came in contact with the deceased which is not in dispute which is also clearly made out from the evidence before this Court. In the u.'ritten statement it is specihcally stated that the said accident occurred cl-r-re to the illegal ta-pping of electricity by unknolr,n person }_r,w using deteriorated service wire. It has to be noted that it u,as ir-r the late night when the accident occurred. Admittedly the equipment firted to the electric pole was detached even as per the pleadings of the defendants. Though it is contended that no possibility in getting electric shock ',vith AB cable at middle portion of the wire being derached and the equipment fitted to the pole is intact and properly htted and there is no negligence on the part of the defendants. Admittedly, it is a clear case rvhere the deceased died due to the electrocution, as such, the contention of the defendants that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants cannot be accepted for the reason that it is the duty of the defendants to see that any equipment hxed to the pole ought to have fixed rvith proper care and precaution and should not fall due to rain and should not be detached from the po1e. Hence, for the said reasons and as per the alalysis of evidence placed, the death of the deceased was caused due to the electrocution and that too due to the negligence

¶96

¶97

¶98

I[VR.J As.&.l2f,g oF 2oo1 &]98!4eJ oF 2O2s.

¶99

on the part of the respondent department. Hence, this :s sue is answered accordingly in lavorrr of thc plaintiffs / cross r l jectors against defendants / responclen ts.

¶100

D^;-r NI^c 1 A 9,^c,

¶101

Coming to the aspect of compensation, the le: :ned trial court considering the aspect that the deceased was aged abr r,rt 40 years a.d was earning Rs. I00/- per day, but the learned tril court without considering the fact that during 1997, the deceasr: I rvas hale and healthy and^t"{'as having agricultural backgrour r t should have considered the income o[ the deceased at Rs.100/-, br t r-he learned trial court taken into consideration of the incorne of the dt,< :ased at Rs.50/per day has ar.r,arde<l Rs.85,000/- under the following r rrious heads;

¶102

considering the dailv u,ages at Rs.50/Rs. 1,0O0^., )() per month per da1, for 20 working days per month on an average

¶103

Considering monthl_v income of Rs. 1,000/Rs.9,000- )C per year. for 9 months per J.car excluding (3) months rainy season.

¶104

Considering average Indian Life expectancy Rs. 1 ,26,r) )rl-00 of 54 Sears is Rs.9.000/- per year income ibr (14) years.

¶105

Deduction of I1Q p.,.fsg4el qxpenq iture Rs.42,OC( -00

¶106

¶107

ta4,/ AS,Ivo. t970 0F 2001 An X-OB.JI OF 2025

¶108

of the deceased.

¶109

-t

¶110

Therefore Rs 1,26,000/- minr-rs Rs 42,000/ Rs.84,000-00

¶111

Rs.85,000-00

¶112

Now the question is whether the compensation can be awarded by applying the principles of Motor Vehicle Act or the Regulations which are made or the abstract issued by the Telangana Electricity Regulatorl.' Commission (for short TERC) can be taken into consideration u,hile deciding the compensation. in fact, it is aiso the said absrract issueci by the TERC is not in dispute. The plaintiffs have also contended that the case of the plaintiffs can be considered under the said abstract for the reason that it is more beneficial to the plaintiffs rather than the amount '*,hich^{is calculatedas per} the^judgment of the trial court.

¶113

As seen from the said abstract, which abstract proceeding No.TSERC/Secyl64l2Ol7, dated 28.12.2017, wherein the quantum of ex gratia payable in case of latal accident resulting in death of a nondepartment person earlier vvas Rs.4,00,000/- which has enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-, but in the said abstract it is specifically stated that the same is applicable to the cases which are occurred with effect from

¶114

¶115

fl?fi'J As t'to.19?O^{O! 2gPL} !L\LPN4!2:1^oF2025

¶116

01.01.2018. Further.^{the saicl abstract, dated 28'12 ))17' cannot be} relied upon for thc llurpose^{of granting compensa t r rr' so also the} abstract, dated^{28. 12.2O15, vide proceedingNo TSF ItC/Seci /86of} 20 15; wherein^{the enhancement of ex gratia in res I :':t of the same} payable in fatal accident^{resulting in death of a: :n-departmental} person was Rs.2,00,000/-^{and it was enhanced to Il; zi'00'000/-lt is} specifically stated^{in the said abstract at paragrapl l'1o 13' for ready} reference the^{sameis reproduced hereinunder:}

¶117

13. Effect of Enhancement^{of ex-gratia:}

¶118

A. This order shall^{come into lorce in respect' ra fatal} acciden( resulting^{in dcath ol a Non-departmelll'L person} and / or ol an animal(s)^{ou'ing to electrocution 'v th effect} lrom I^-' Jr,nuary^2016.

¶119

B. The latal accidents^{rcsulting indeath rl rlNon-} departmental^{pcrson and} I^{or of an animal(s cwingto} eiec[rocution^{upto:3 i. i2.2Oi5shaii be goverrtr c by Lhe} erstwhile Commission^{order datecl 13 08'2013}

¶120

The case^{of thc plaintiff rvouldfall under 13 tl r s, the said accident} was occurred on²⁷ l2B-1O-1997^{i.e', prior to 31'1' 2015 and in such} case the same shall^{be governedby order, datedi08'20i3' abstract} that is the Commission order,^{the ex gratia for the lr:ath whichcaused}

¶121

{B,J 4E-M-1970oF^2o0l a, x oBJI OF 2025

¶122

due to the electrocution^{was Rs.2,00,000/- inrespect of anon-} departmental^{person with an interest} @12%'^{[n the present case' as the} plaintiffs claim for^{Rs.2,50,000/ - u'ith interest'}

¶123

24 . ln vieu, of the^{flndingsof this court that the said deathhas} occurred due to^{the eiectrocutionand that too due to the negligence on} the part of the^{deoartment.This Court is of the opinion that the case of} theplaintiffsverymuchfallwithintheabstractCommissionOrder' dated 13.08.2013,^{which isreferredto in theproceedings} No.TSERC/Secyl86^{of 20 I5, dated 28'12'2015, and the plaintiffwould} be entitled^{for ex gratia of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest'}

¶124

25.Consideringtheaboveabstract,thisCourtisoftheopinionthat the plaintifls^{would be entitled for the said sum under the said abstract.} 'vVitl-r i egai-d to tire^{iiiter est, eveii as pei- the very abst|act'ciated} 28.12.2015, where it^{says in any delay in paymentof ex gratia to the} legal heirs after^{two months lrom the date of the plaintshall attract the} simple intere st @, l2ol'^{per annum till the date of payment ln fact' if q'e} take the filing^of the^{petitionbefore the trial court as an application for} payment of ex gratia,^the defendants fully^{au'are that there was a} \ Commissidn^Order,dated 13.08.20 13, existing^{as on the said date of}

¶125

¶126

...i7.J.?F',1'4jFt.@,,1,f

¶127

¶128

¶129

JV n."l AS.No.l97O OF 2O01 6,4.oE!8,.1 oF 2O2s

¶130

accident, it is the defendants^{who ought to have ar'l'tu t t:d the ex gratta} to Lhe plaintiffs/ claiman ts. ln the^{absence of there I eing no positive} action taken by the rlepartment^{itr resoect of the sanr: as such taking} into consideration of the^{regr-rlation,the defendants . re lrount.lto pay} the interest for the non-compliance^{of the Comrni s;ion Order and} payment ol the cx gratia. [n such case, this^{Court is Ithe opinion that} the piaintilfs are er-rtitled for the compensation^{rvith ir I :rest} @^{12Vo even} b,1' applying the said clause-A o[^{the said abstract.}

¶131

Hence, for the said reasons, the^{points are an:r ,'ered in favour of} rhe piaintiffs against the deienciants alci this^{Cottr tts oi the opinion} that the learned trial court ought to^{have consider€(tae said aspectas} referred above and au,arded the^{just compense(i ,rl. Hen<:e,which} u,arrants interference in the said^{judgment and dec- t: ol trial court. In} the absence of the same, the^{judgment and dt:t} '^{ee passed by the} learnecl trial cottrt is set aside and this^{points are I - su'ered accordingly} that the petitioners are entitled lor the^{enhancc ccompensationby} r.ppll ing Nor.ificat ion^iss'-tecl h1'^{th.e Telanga.':St atetrlectricity} Regulatory Commission.

¶132

I
I

¶133

¶134

-ru\m.J A5.1,o.1970 0F 200t & x.oB.r.No. t OF 2OZs

¶135

In the result, the appeal filed by rhe appe llants/defendants is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the plarntiff/cross objectors is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learnedtrial court and au,arding compensation of Rs.2,O0,O00/- with interest @ l2ok per annum (-) which is already deposited if any, from the date of accident till the date of realization, thereby decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. The appellants/ defendalts are directed to deposit the entire claim of the compensation with interest and cost within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which, the plaintifls are entitled to recover the same by ta)ling s'.eps as pro', ide d unCe:- la',',' anC cn such deposit, the plaln'.iff No. I being the wife is entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest and plaintiff No.2 though he was a minor at the time of hling of the petition, the learned counsel for the plaintiff reported that he has attained the age of majority and in such case he sha_ll move an application before the trial court seeking declaration o[ his majority and after that the plaintiff No.2 is enrirled for an amount of Rs.5O,000/with proportionate interest and cost. Plaintiff Nos.3 & 4 being the parents are entitled for Rs.25,000/- each n,ith proportionate interest and costs.

¶136

¶137

¶138

lvxR,J As.!e.l9Ao.9E 299f tt -/ Q4!-N9,! oF 2O2s

¶139

Miscellaneous ltetilions,^{il any are pending, shall stan I closed}

¶140

Sd/. M TAMANA KRISHNA OINT REGISTRAR { ='_.

¶141

¶142

/TTRUE COPY// \l SECTION OFFICER

¶143

To,

¶144

1 The Chairman, fVlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cunt S _.nior Civil Judge at Huzurabad. (with records, if any)

¶145

2 One CC to Sri A. Chandra Shaker (Standing Counset fr r trtpDCL) {OpUCl 3 One CC to Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, Advocate [OpUC] 4 Two CD Copies

¶146

a, vt-vPR

HIGH COURT

NNR, J

DATED:^1011012025

COMMON^JUDGMENT +DECREE AS.No.1970^{of 2001} AND X-OBJ No.^{1 of 2025}

¶151

,.: iTAT
-};
ou : li ii ?l?B 4
.L

¶152

DISMISSING^THE AS.No.1970^{of 2001} AND ALLOWING^THE X-OBJ No.^{1 of 2025}

¶153

1
wo
.1, tL
r)

¶154

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶155

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶156

PRESENT

¶157

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶158

APPEAL SUIT NO: 1970 OF 2001 AND x-oBJECT|ONS NO. 1 0F 2025

¶159

APPEAL SUIT NO: 1970 OF 2001

¶160

Between:

¶161

The Chairman, APTRANSCO (APSEB), Vidyut Soudha, Hyd

¶162

The Superintending Engineer, APTRANSCO (APSEB), Operation Circle, Karimnagar.

¶163

...APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS

¶164

AND

¶165

Ivlaramulla Laxmi W/o late Veeraswamy, aged 35 yrs, Occ: Household

¶166

Ivlaramulla Ra.jakumar S/o Late Veeraswamy, aged 5 yrs, (Minor) under the Guardianship of Plaintiff No. 1. i.e. Mother.

¶167

MaramLrlla Lasumaiah S/o Peddaiah, aged 60^yrs, Occ: Labour

¶168

Ivlaramulla Boogamma W/o Lasumaiah, aged 55 yrs, Occ: Household

¶169

All are r/o Valbhapur village of Veenavanka lvlandal, Karimnagar Dist.

¶170

The District Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dist.

¶171

...RESPONDENTS

¶172

X-Obi. lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶173

Between:

¶174

Maramulla Laxmi W/o late Veeraswamy, aged 38 yrs, Occ: Household

¶175

Maramullah Rajakumar S/o Late Veeraswamy, age 7 yrs, being minor rep. by his mother and being minor and natural guardian i.e. 1'' appellant

¶176

Maramulla Lasumaiah S/o Peddaiah, aged 62^yrs, Occ: Labour

¶177

Maramulla Boogamma W/o Lasmaiah, aged 55^yrs, Occ: Household

¶178

All are R/o Valbhapur Village of Veenavanka l,4andal, Kilr rlnagar Dist

¶179

...CROSS OBJEC'- )RYRESPONDENTS

¶180

AND

¶181

The District Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dist.

¶182

...RESPON I :NT/RESpONOENT

¶183

The Chairman, A.p S.E.B , Vidyut Soudha, Hyd.

¶184

The Superintendino Enqineer, ApTRANSCO (ApSEE ). Operation Circle, Karimnagar

¶185

...APPELLAI\ TS/RESPONDENTS

¶186

Appeal under Section i 73 of Motor Vehicles Acl a td [/emorandum of cross objections Under order XLI Rule 22 of c.p.c agains he order and decree in o P No 15 of 1998 dated zs-o4-zo0i on the fire of the (.r urt of the chairman, Ir4otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-senior Civil Judge at l-rr zurabad.

¶187

These appeals coming on for hearing and upon pe.L s ng the grounds of appeal' the Judgment and Decree of the court berow and ;l- l materiar papers in the OP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B. pradee) .,:p. Sri A. Chandra Shaker (Standing Counsel for NpDCL) for the App I .rnts and for the Respondents in Cross Objection and of Sri Ajay Kumar l..r lkarni appearing on beharf of Sri B. Narasimha sarma, Advocate for the Res r ,.rdents and for the Cross Objectors in Cross Objection.

¶188

This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶189

1 That the Appeat fited by the appellants/defendanrs be and hereby IS dismissed

¶190

2 Jiat the cross objection fired by the praintiff/cross obj( ( c)rs be and hereby is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree pass: by the learned trial court and awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/_ !v il interest @ 12ok per annum(-) which is atready deposited if any, from the ,j te of acciclent till the date of realization, thereby decreeing the suit in favour < i the plain|ffs against the defendanls

¶191

That the appellants/defendants are directed to deposi: re entire ctaim of the compensation with interest and cost within two mo r ns from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which, the plaintiffs rre entifled to recover

¶192

¶193

the same by taking steps as provided under law and on such deposit, the plaintiff No.1 being the wife is entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,00,0001 with proportionate interest and praintiff No. 2 though he was a minor at the time of filing of the petition, the rearned counser for the praintiff reported that he has attained the age of majority and in such case he shall move an application before the trial court seeking decraration of his majority and after that the plaintiff No 2 is entitled for an amount of Rs. 50,0001 with proportionate interst and cost; and

¶194

That the Plaintiff Nos.3 & 4 being the parents are entifled for Rs.25,0001 each with proportionate interest and costs.

¶195

Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA INT REGISTR4e"-

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

1 The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad.

¶200

M, Two CD Copies VH/PR

¶201

HIGH COURT DATED: 1011012025

¶202

COMMON DECREE AS.No.1970 of 2001 AND X-OBJ No. 1 of 2025

¶203

DISMISS!NG THE AS.No.1970 of 2001 AND ALLOWING THE X-OBJ No. 1 of 2025

¶204

I
T
\1

Chairman Ap Transco. v. Hyd and Anr. v Maramulla Laxmi and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chairman Ap Transco. v. Hyd and Anr. v Maramulla Laxmi and 4 Ors.

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

C.Veera Venkata Sai Kumar and another Vs M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. and 3 others

Maddineni Vidyavathi Vs Kutumbaka Naga Laxmi

L and T Metro Rail (Hyderabad) Ltd. Vs Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd.

Megacity Avopa Housing Welfare Society Vs M/s. Mamatha Projects private Limited

G. John Vs B.Pandu

Megacity Avopa Housing Welfare Society Vs M/s. Mamatha Projects private Limited