Posts

Showing posts from September, 2013

M.V. ACT = Respondents 1 to 5 herein filed O.P.No.129 of 2001 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Rajahmundry, claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation on account of death of Sri T. Adireddy, the husband of the first respondent, father of respondents 2 and 3 and son of respondents 4 and 5. It was pleaded that the deceased was cultivating an extent of Acs.40.00 of land and was running two petrol bunks including Service Stations at Anaparthi and Rajahmundry. Their further plea was that he was doing business in finance and running a dairy farm. = The plea of respondents 1 to 3 and 5 itself was that the income of the deceased was Rs.15,000/- per month. Notwithstanding the fact that the oral evidence did not support this, the deduction of the personal expenditure of the deceased ought to have been effected from this. Since there are five dependents for the deceased, the deduction can be 1/4th. However, the Tribunal has straightaway adopted the figure Rs.15,000/- by making a baseless observation that 1/3rd is deducted from it. If 1/4th is deducted from Rs.15,000/-, it would be Rs.11,250/- per month. The annual loss of income would be Rs.1,35,000/-. If it is multiplied with ‘13’, the loss of contribution to the family will be Rs,17,55,000/-. Hence, the compensation is reduced to Rs.17,55,000/-. To this amount, a sum of Rs.20,000/- needs to be added towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Then, it comes to Rs.17,80,000/-. Out of this, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded to the fifth respondent and Rs.20,000/- representing consortium is awarded to the first respondent. The remaining amount shall be divided equally among respondents 1 to 3. In the recent past, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the rate of interest is 7% per annum. We accordingly direct reduction of interest from 9% per annum to 7% per annum. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this appeal shall stand disposed of.

MACMA 1509 / 2013

CMASR 17868 / 2004
PETITIONERRESPONDENTM/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD  VSSMT.DTADI LAKSHMI & 9 ORSPET.ADV. : VENUGOPAL REDDYRESP.ADV. : SIVA REDDYSUBJECT: MOTOR VEHICLES ACT(DEATH)DISTRICT:  EAST GODAVARIpublished in http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2013/macma/macma_1509_2013.htmlTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYand
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATTM.A.C.M.A.No.1509 of 2013
JUDGMENT: - (Per the Hon’ble Sri JusticeL. Narasimha Reddy) Respondents 1 to 5 herein filed O.P.No.129 of 2001 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Rajahmundry, claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation on account of death of Sri T. Adireddy, the husband of the first respondent, father of respondents 2 and 3 and son of respondents 4 and 5. It was pleaded that the deceased was cultivating an extent of Acs.40.00 of land and was running two petrol bunks including Service Stations at Anaparthi and Rajahmundry.  Their further plea was that he …

Sections 53 and 54 of Mental Health Act, 1987= In the impugned order, the Court below found that the appellant herein has no locus standi to file O.P.No.673 of 1999 as much as he is not having blood relation with the alleged lunatic Brahmaraju and the fifth respondent is the wife of Brahmaraju and the said Brahmaraju is a deaf and dumb person. Further, the mother and sister of the said lunatic are also alive. In view of aforesaid reasons recorded by the Court below in the impugned order, we do not find any ground to entertain this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal at this point of time.

CMA 768 / 2013

CMASR 14616 / 2003

PETITIONERRESPONDENTK.SURJYANARAYANA  VSNAMA LAKSHMI & 4 ORSPET.ADV. : NIRANJAN REDDYRESP.ADV. : SUBJECT: MATRIMONIAL CASESDISTRICT:  VISAKHAPATNAMpublished in http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2013/cma/cma_768_2013.html THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.768  of  2013
ORDER: (per RSR, J)           This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.No.673 of 1999, aggrieved of order, dated 10.01.2003 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam.
          The appellant herein filed aforesaid O.P. under Sections 53 and 54 of Mental Health Act, 1987 seeking custody of Sri Nama Brahmaraju, Son of Peddiraju and to appoint him as Manager to manage the estate of the said lunatic. The Court below mainly on the ground that the mother and sister of the said
mentally ill person are very much alive, refused to give custody of the sa…

Workmen compensation Act= i) The section mandates such assessment only by a qualified medical practitioner.- Whether non-compliance of provision in Section 10(1) vitiates the proceedings? ii) Whether non-issuance of certificate of loss of earning capacity by the Doctor vitiates the determination of compensation? iii) Whether the compensation awarded was excess / not commensurate to the loss of earning capacity suffered by the claimants?=According to fifth proviso to Sec. 10(1) of the Act, discretion is vested in the Commissioner to entertain and decide the claim for compensation even though no notice was given, subject to his satisfaction of sufficient cause for not giving such notice.-no specific certificate is issued by the Medical Officer on the loss of earning capacity, the disability has to be taken as the basis to determine the loss of earning capacity.= the driver on the Tractor and Trailer Nos. AP 28T 562 and AP 28 T 563 and was aged 31 years. The injury caused to right leg knee and Doctor assessed the disability caused as 30% permanent partial disability.& a labourer travelling on Tractor and Trailer which met with an accident.- The Medical Officer has assessed the disability as 30% permanent partial disability. = The applicant is a labourer travelling on Tractor and Trailer which met with an accident. In the accident, applicant suffered injuries which are described by the Medical Officer as Traumatic stiffness of the right knee joint, painful and restricted movement of knee joint, blunt injury of chest. The Medical Officer has assessed the disability as 30% permanent partial disability. Considering the evidence on record and based on the Medical Certificate of disability, the Commissioner has` awarded compensation of Rs.68,619.96. I am of the opinion that compensation awarded is just and reasonable. There is no merit in the contention of respondent insurance company, hence C.M.A No. 249 of 2003 is dismissed. The Commissioner has followed the disability suffered by claimant as certified by the Medical Officer to determine the compensation. No basis is shown to enhance the compensation. Hence, C.M.A No. 177 of 2009 filed by claimant also fails and hence dismissed.- The applicant is a labourer travelling on the Tractor and Trailer. When the Tractor met with an accident, the applicant suffered injuries. Medical Officer who examined the applicant has certified the nature of injuries suffered by him as blunt chest injury, painful movements of scapula left described that he has difficulty in breathing. The Medical Officer has assessed the disability as 35% permanent partial disability. Considering the evidence on record, the Commissioner has assessed the compensation based on the disability certified by the Medical Officer and arrived at the compensation amount of Rs.81,992/-. There is no merit in the appeal filed by the insurance company. The claimant has not made out a case for enhancement of compensation. It cannot be said that compensation awarded by the Commissioner is not just and reasonable. Hence, appeal filed by the claimant also fails.

CMA 470 / 2013

CMASR 72317 / 2002
PETITIONERRESPONDENTA.ANJAIAH,AKKAPOOR,NIZAMABAD  VSBR.MNGR,NEW INDIA ASSU.CO.LTD,KAMAREDY&APET.ADV. : JANARDHAN REDDYRESP.ADV. : KOTA SUBBA RAOSUBJECT: W.C.ACT & E.S.I. ACTDISTRICT:  NIZAMABADpublished in http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2013/cma/cma_470_2013.htmlTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAOCMA Nos.177, 187, 249, 263 of 2003C.M.A No. 2819 OF 2004,C.M.A. No.177 OF 2009&CMA Nos.470 AND 471 OF 2013COMMON JUDGMENT:
          All the CMAs arise out of the orders passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s’ Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Commissioner”) in individual cases relating to same incident. Common issues arise for consideration in all the appeals and hence are disposed of by a common order. Parties are referred to as arrayed before the Commissioner.2.       C.M.A Nos.177, 187, 249 and 263 of 2003 are filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited challenging the …