Telangana High Court
REVIEW PETITION 4 of 2023 on 29 November 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSANO AND TWENW FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST]CE K. SURENDER
r.A.NO.4 0F 2023
IN
M.A.C.M.A.No; 2099 0F 2007
Appeal filed under section 173 of M.v.Act., against the order dated:29.11.2000 passed in oP.No.960 of 2oo4 on the file of the chairman, MotorAccident Claims Tribunal-cum-principal District Judge, at Nalgonda.
Between:
Nandikond.a. Rajeswar Reddy, S/o Buchi Reddy, Age: 33 years, occ:Driver, Rl/oNermata Village of Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda ['Eiistrict]...APPELLANT/CLA|MANTNermata Village of Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda ['Eiistrict]...APPELLANT/CLA|MANT
AND
1. V. Balakrishna M. Shetty, S/o [,19! known Owner of Tipper bearing No. KA 25B 3765 R/o Saptapur Dharuvad District Kamataka State.B 3765 R/o Saptapur Dharuvad District Kamataka State.
State.2. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, rep., by its Branch Manager,Branch Offlce, Prakasham Bazar Nalgonda Town aM District.(R1- dismissed vide C.O. dated:21tO712O17)Branch Offlce, Prakasham Bazar Nalgonda Town aM District.(R1- dismissed vide C.O. dated:21tO712O17)
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
lA NO:4 OF 2023
Between:Nandikonda. Rajeslv_ar Reddy, S/o pggh! Reddy, Age: 4ti years, Occ: Driver, Rl/oNermata Village of Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda-Dist-rict...PETITIONER/APPELT_ANT
ANO
1. Balakrishna M. Shefty, p{o. fot known, age Major, Occ: Tipper owner Rl/oBalakrishna M. Shefty, p{o. fot known, age Major, Occ: Tipper owner Rl/oSaptapur Dhanivad Di3trict Karnataka Staie.
2. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, rep., by its Branch Manager,Branch Office, Prakasham Bazar Nalgonda Town and District.(Respondent No.1-is not necessary party to this petition)Branch Office, Prakasham Bazar Nalgonda Town and District.(Respondent No.1-is not necessary party to this petition)
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
Petition under [-Section ]47 Rule [(1) ]of CPC., [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the High Courtmay be pleased to review the orders [passed ]in M.A.C.M.A.NO.2099 ot 2OO7,dated: 13-07-2022.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY GOPIREDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: P HARINATH GUPTA
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE [SRI ]JUSTICE [K.SURENDEI(]
I.A.No.4 of 2023lnM.A.C.M.A.No.2099 [of ][2007]
ORDER:
The Review application [is ][filed ][by ][the ][appellant ][mainly ][on ][two]grounds i.e., 1) the [interest comPonent ][has to ][be ][calculated ][from ][the]date of petitiory however, [it ][was ordered ][that ][the amount should ][be]calculated from the date [of the ][order of this Court ][i.e., ][13'07 ]'2022,2) [the]injured suffered 50% [disability, for which ][reasory ][future ][prospects ][of]40o/o has to be added [to ][his income.]
Learned counsel for the for the the [[review ]][[petitioner ]][[relied ][on ][the]][[on ][the]][[the]]
Page 1 of 4
2. Learned counsel for the for the the [[review ]][[petitioner ]][[relied ][on ][the]][[on ][the]][[the]]judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][in ]["Erudhaya ][Piya ][Vs' State]Express Corporation Limiteil" [wherein ][the ][claimant ][received ][31'1%]of permanent disability, [however, ]ProsPd''cts [were ][not awarded' ][The]Hon,ble supreme [Court ][held ][that ][future ]ProsPects [had ][to ][be ][calculated]50% of the actual salary.
3. On the other hand, [leamed ][counsel ][for ][Irsurance ][Company]would submits that [under ][ordet ][47 RuIe 1 ][of ][CPC, ][unless ][there ][is ][a]mistake or an [error ][apparent on the ][face ][of ][the ][record, ][the ][case ][cannot]
t.A.No.4 of 2023 in M^.r.r.^*r.r*n rfi:o!rf-,
Page 2 of 4
be subjected the review. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon,ble
Supreme Court in [,,parsion ]Dezti and others Vs. Sumitri Dezti andothers". and [,,Shanti ]Conductors pioate Limiteil Vs. Assam StateElecticity Board and others" wherein it was herd stated that unressDezti and others Vs. Sumitri Dezti andothers". and [,,Shanti ]Conductors pioate Limiteil Vs. Assam StateElecticity Board and others" wherein it was herd stated that unressthere is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, thejudgment is not open to review.judgment is not open to review.
4. This Court had considered considered the facts of case of case case and deemed itappropriate to enhance the compensation to the claimant.
This Court had considered considered the facts of case of case case and deemed it
5. In the said circums the said circums said circums circums tances, when this Court deemed when this Court deemed this Court deemed Court deemed deemed itappropriate to enhance the compensatiory the interest that has to betaken should be from the date of the petition. Accordingly, the interestof 7.5% shall be calculated on the enhanced compensation from thedate of petition.
In the said circums the said circums said circums circums tances, when this Court deemed when this Court deemed this Court deemed Court deemed deemed it
6. In the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in ,Eruithaya Priya Case'(cited above) in the said facts, where there was 31.1%permanent disability, the Hon,ble supreme Court deemed itappropriate to grant 50% of income towards fufure prospects.
i
/
KS,IIL.No.4 [of ][2023 ][it ][M'A'C'M'LNI'2099 ][ol2008]
Page 3 of 4
In the [present ][case' ][it ][is ][not ][the ][case ][that ][the ][claimant ][who ][was]
7. working [as ][Driver ][prior ][to ][the accident cannot take ][up ][driving' ][For ][the]said [reason, ][this Court is not inclined ][to ][accept ][the ][argument ][of ][the]leamed [counsel ][that future ][ProsPecbs ][have ][also to ][be ][considered']
8. Accordingly, [the review petition ][is ][ordered ][to ][the ][extent ][of]directing [grant ][of ][interest ][from ][the date ][of ][petition on the ][enhanced]amount'
No
Pending [miscellaneous ][petitions' ][if ][any' ][shall ][stand ][closed']
Ysd/-[P.PAD][ MANAB][HAR]ASSIS[TAN]OFFTCERSECTI
order [as ][to ][costs'---]
,TTRUE [COPY/I]
";:#"i€ffi iffi{*Jffiuf i:".'#}":HJ*;;::'::::i:-'"GuPrA' [Advocate ][toPucr]i $3u;ii"i*,.l'''o**o'"
Pr/gltW
HIGH COURT
DATED: 2210212024
ORDER!.A.NO.4 0F 2023INMACMA.No.2099 of 2007
ORDERING THE
REVIEW PETITION
6o,c4)4-fEfq
)oR [THE ][S]r4oL)20 fiAfl ona,+**P4rCHED
Page 4 of 4
Loading citations and judicial treatment…