Telangana High Court
CIVIL APPEAL 1016 of 2000 on 6 June 1995
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
cRoss oBJEcTtoNs No.40305 0F 2000
INAPPEAL SUIT: 1016 0F 2000
Memorandum of Cross Objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C inAS.No.1016 of 2000 on the file of the High Cou(, against the judgment and decreeAS.No.1016 of 2000 on the file of the High Cou(, against the judgment and decreedaled 21-12-1999 passed in O.S.No.36 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the SeniorCivil Judge,Medak.Civil Judge,Medak.
Between:
1. Palle Vi.jayalakshmi,, W/o late P. Ravinder, Household RJo Village and (M),Shankarampet, Ivledak Dist.Shankarampet, Ivledak Dist.
2. Palle Saroja,, Wo P. Manijyam, Household Ryo Village and (M), Shankarampet,Medak Dist.Medak Dist.
3. Prashant Kumar,, S/o late P. Ravinder, Being Minor rep by respondent No.'l RyoVillage and (M), Shankarampet, lvledak Dist.Village and (M), Shankarampet, lvledak Dist.
4. Praneeth Kumar,, S/o late P. Ravinder, Being Minor rep by respondent No.'1 R/oVillage and (tril), Shankarampet, Medak Dist.Village and (tril), Shankarampet, Medak Dist.
5. Pragnya,, D/o late P. Ravinder, Being Minor rep by respondent No.'1 Ryo Village and(M), Shankarampet, lvledak Dist.(M), Shankarampet, lvledak Dist.
...CROSS OBJECTORS/RESPONDENTS
AND
1 . . Potti Shivaiah,, Died per LR. D-6
2. 1 . . P. Ramesh,, S/o P. Shivaiah, Business Fyo Peddashankarampet (V) and (M), MedakDist.Dist.
3. P. Umakanth,, S/o P. Shivaiah, Employee Fi/o .Peddashankarampet (V) and (M),lvledak Dist.lvledak Dist.
4. P. Rajanikanth,, S/o P. Shivaiah, Business Ryo Peddashankarampet (V) and (M),Medak Dist.Medak Dist.
5. P. Praveen,, S/o P. Shivaiah, Business Fi/o Peddashankarampet (V) and (M), MedakDist.Dist.
6. Smt. P. Janakamma,, Wo P. Shivaiah, Household Fyo Peddashankarampet (V) and(M), Medak Dist.(M), Medak Dist.
...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS
Counsel for the Cross Objectors: Sri ALLADI RAVINDERln Cross ObjectionsCounsel for the Respondents: SRI K KWAGHRAYln Cross ObjectionsCounsel for the Respondents: SRI K KWAGHRAYln Cross ObjectionsThe Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT{+IThe Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT{+I
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVARAO [NAIDU]cRosS OBJECTION No.4O3OS [OF ][2OOO]INA.S.No.1016 OF 2OOO
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
This cr:oss objections have been filed by the [plaintiffs]in O.S.No.36 of 1995 on the file of Senior Civil [Judge,]Medak. They have filed the above referred original [suit]before the triieJ. Court, seeking compensation on account [of]death of onr: Palle Ravinder who is no other than husbando1 1st plaintrfl-. According to the plaint filed by them [before]the trial Cor.rrt, on 06.06.1995 when the deceased [Ravinder]and his family members were sleeping in the house, [there]\..as an explo:sion in the neighboring house which belong tothe respcn,l(lr1ts/ defendants and in view of the [said]explosion, th,: 1"' floor of the house was blown off fell onthe roof of tl-r,: I "t floor of house of the plaintiffs due [to]which the dec,=ased who was sleeping in the front portionreceived severo injuries and died on the spot. A complaintwas lodged br:lbre the police concerned and having r:laimed
2
SS.RiI, Jcrcss obl.rto-4o3o5 ol 2ooot t AS ,10.1016 oJ 2ooo that the death of Ravinder [caused ][a ][great ][loss ][to ][their]family including deprivation [of their ][earning person, ][the]for a sum of [Rs.7,00,000/- ][as]plaintiffs sought compensation for the [death of Ravinder ][and ][Rs.1,O0,0OO/-]towards damages caused [to the ][house.]
2- The defendants have [resisted ][the ][claim. ][According ][to]the plaint filed by them [before ][the ][trial ][Court ][the plaintiffs]have claimed that the said [explosion ][occurred ][because the]defendants have stored explosive [subsistence ][in ][their]house. The defendants [have ][claimed ][that ][they ][never ][stored]any such explosive substances [and ][in ][those days naxalites]used to blast the houses of [some ][people ][ald ][this ][incident]might have occurred in [view ][of the ][involvement ][of ][the]naxalites. However, the trial [Court ][having ][accepted ][the]contention of the [plaintiff and ][having ][disbeiieved ][the]defense taken by the [defendants, ][passed a ][decree ][in ][favour]of the plaintiffs and [awarded ][an amount ][of ][Rs'3,50,0O0/-]as compensation. It [seems ][the ][trial ][Court ][while ][awarding]compensation accepted the [contention ][raised ][by ][the]defendants that the [family ][members ][including ][the wife ][of]
(-r
3ss-R- , Jcross obJ.No.403Os [ol ][2oOO]tn As No.1O16 [oJ ][2OOO]
the decease<l [have received ][compensations ][from ][some ][other]sourcesinciudingtheGovernmentandScoreDepartment'where the de:eased [was ][working thereby ][held ][that ][an]amount of [)is'3,50,000/- ][would be an ][appropriate]compensatirln, While paLssing paLssing [[decree ][the ][trial ][Court has found that]][[the ][trial ][Court has found that]][[trial ][Court has found that]][[Court has found that]]
3. While paLssing paLssing [[decree ][the ][trial ][Court has found that]][[the ][trial ][Court has found that]][[trial ][Court has found that]][[Court has found that]]the evidence [of the ][expert ][summoned ][by plaintiffs ][proved]that the [t:x.p,losion ][that ][took ][place ][in the ][house ][of]defendants [rvres ][due ][to ][use ][of ][explosive subsistence ][and]also held that [the ][defendants ][could ][not ][substantiate ][their]claim that [t.h.e ][said explosion ][was ][due ][to ][the involvement of]naxalites.
The rlefendants rlefendants [[being ][aggrieved ][by ][the ][Judgment]][[aggrieved ][by ][the ][Judgment]][[by ][the ][Judgment]][[the ][Judgment]][[Judgment]]
4. The rlefendants rlefendants [[being ][aggrieved ][by ][the ][Judgment]][[aggrieved ][by ][the ][Judgment]][[by ][the ][Judgment]][[the ][Judgment]][[Judgment]]have filed thr: [appeal ][vide ][A.S.No'1016 ][of ][2OOO ][arrd ][the]plaintiffs in the suit [{iled ][the ][present cross ][objections' ][In]fact, the appeal [preferred ][by the ][defendants ][was ][already]l.his [Court ][vide ][Judgment, ][dated ][25'07'2023']disposed by Since the parties [could ][not ][bring ][it ][to ][the ][notice ][of ][this]
SSRTY, .,cross ln AS Obl,No.4o3OS I'1o.1016 ol oI 2OOO2OOOa Court, the cross objections could not have been [decided at]the time of disposing the 1"t appeal.
5. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a petition by [making ][for]being mention got the cross objection listed [before this]Court and both he parties have submitted [their ][respective]contentions.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted [that]the due to the above referred accident, the [deceased ][who ][is]no way concerned with the explosive [substances ][which ][was]stored in the house of defendants, [succumbed ][to ][the]injuries when the roof of the house of [defendants ][fell ][on]their house. The plaintiffs lost the breadwinner [of ][their]family. The trial Court without considering [the ][material]averments and claim raised by the [plaintiffs ][awarded ][a]meager amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. However, [he did ][not]dispute the receipt of some [compensation ][amount ][by ][the]family members of the deceased.
7 . It may be a fact that there [was ]a [death ][in ][the ][house]
of the plaintiffs which was due to [fall of ][roof ][of ][the]
ssRtv, Jc@ss obJ.No.4o3OS [of ][2OOo]tfl AS No.1O16 [o! 2ooo]
defendants' [house and ][in ][view ][of ][the ][explosion ][of ][ther ][house]of defendants. [It ][is ][true, ][in ][view ][of ][the ][above ][accident' ][the]plaintiffs havr: suffered [irreparable ][loss' ][However' ][the]contention [,r1' ][the ][plaintiffs ][that ][they are entitled ][for ][more]compensatirtn [has ][to ][be ][examined ][by ][keeping ][financial]status of th.e [,Cefendants ][as ][well. ][The ][plaintiffs ][could ][not]place any rrLzLterial to [prove ][the ][financial status ][of ][the]defendants.
B. As couirl be seen [from ][the ][oral ][and ][doculnentary]evidence pllr:r:d [before ][the Court ][it ][is ][very clear ][that ][due ][to]the said e:xplosion, [the ][house ][of the ][defenda-nts ][was]and [already ][the ][defendants suffered ][a ][decree, by]collapsed which they hzrve [deposited compensation ][amount ][that ][was]orclered [together ][with ][interest ][i'e', ][al ][amount ][of]already Rs.8,80,4412,/ -. The [evidence ][clearly indicates ][that ][soon]after the a<:cirlent, the [wife ][of ][the ][deceased ][has ][received an]amount o{' Fls.2O,00O/- [from ][the ][Government ][ald ][the]of the [deceased ][paid ][the ][death ][benefits ][vide]employer Exs.C2 to [(l(i ]ald in [view ][of ][lhe ][untimely death ][of ][the]deceased [v,,ifr: ]of the [deceased ][was appointed ][under ][Ex ][CS]
I(
SSRI\I Jcross or'l.No.4o3os of 2oooln As No.ro16 oJ 2U)O
appointment order. According to the oral and documentaryevidence produced by the plaintiffs itself the [deceased ][was]working as lineman in Score Departmenton monthlysalary of Rs.3,O72 / - [.]
9. Therefore, the evidence placed before the Courtshows that due to the death of the [deceased ][one ][of ][his]family members got appointment and the Court [already]considered all these aspects, and awarded [appropriate]compensation. Therefore, there are no [other ][grounds ][for]enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the [cross]is liable to be dismissed. [Accordingly, ][it ][is]objection dismissed.
10. In the result, the cross objection [is ][dismissed. ][No]costs.
As a sequel, pending [Miscellaneous ][Applications, ][if]
shall stand closedany,
Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAOJOINT REGISTRARSECTIOFFICER
//TRUE COPY//
To,
1 . The Senior [Civil Judge,Medak]
2. One CC to [Sri K ][K ][Waghray ]Advocate [OPUC][OPUC]
3. One CC to [Sri ][Alladi ][Ravinder ]Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CD CoPies
&
AA/gh
o
/'1 Oj
HIGH COURT
DATED: 2810212024
JUDGEMENT
CROSS OBJECTIONSNo.40305 OF 2000INAS.No.1016 ot 2000
DISMISSING THE CROSS [.]OBJECTIONS WITHOUT [COSTS]
&{.NA
o [t;iE ][S ][L\][ 15^];c:1:sr:)17 [JAil ][ilEI](;)2.,1:,a-3::.':r, iLt'
i
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
cRoss oBJECTTONS NO.4030s OF 2000
INAPP EAL SUIT NO: 1016 oF 2000
Between:
1. Palle Vijayalakshmi,, W/o late P. Ravinder, Household R/o Village and (tv1),Shankarampet, tvledak Dist.Shankarampet, tvledak Dist.
2. Palle Saroja,, Wo P. lvlanijyam, Household R/o Village and (M), Shankarampet,Medak Dist.Medak Dist.
3. Prashant Kumar,, S/o late P. Ravinder, Being Minor rep by respondent No.1 RyoMllage and (M), Shankarampet, lvledak Dist.Prashant Kumar,, S/o late P. Ravinder, Being Minor rep by respondent No.1 RyoMllage and (M), Shankarampet, lvledak Dist.
4. Praneeth Kumar,, S/o late P. Ravinder, Being Minor rep by respondent No.1 R/oVillage and (M), Shankarampet, Ivledak Dist.Village and (M), Shankarampet, Ivledak Dist.
5. Pragnya,, D/o late P. Ravinder, Being Minor rep by respondent No.1 R/o Village and(M), Shankarampet, Medak Dist.(M), Shankarampet, Medak Dist.
...CROSS OBJECTORS/RESPONDENTS
ANO
1. Potti Shivaiah,, Died per LR. D-6
2. P. Ramesh,, S/o P. Shivaiah, Business R/o Peddashankarampet (V) and (tU), MedakDist.Dist.
3. P. Umakanth,, S/o P. Shivaiah, Employee R/o Peddashankarampet (V) and (M),Medak Dist.Medak Dist.
4- P. Rajanikanth,, S/o P. Shivaiah, Business R/o Peddashankarampet (V) and (trit),t\iledak Dist.t\iledak Dist.
5. P. Praveen,, S/o P. Shivaiah, Business Rt/o Peddashankarampet (V) and (M), MedakDist.Dist.
6. SmL P. Janakamma,, Wo P. Shivaiah, Household Rl/o Peddashankarampet (V) and(tvl), Medak Dist.(tvl), Medak Dist.
... RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS
Memorandum of Cross Objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.p.C inAS.No.1016 of 2000 on the file of the High Court, against the judgment and decreedated 21-12-1999 passed in O.S.No.36 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the SeniorCivil Judge,Medak.Civil Judge,Medak.
This Memorandum [of ][3'oss ][Objections' Coming on for ][hearing ][and ][upon ][peruslng]the [grounds ][in ][memo''andum ][of ][Cross ][Ob'iections' ][the ][Award ][and ][Decree ][of ][the]Lower court [and ][the rrateriar papers ][in ][the ][case ][and upon hearing ][the ][arguments of]Sri A,adi [Ravinder ][counser for the ][cross objectors ][rn ][cross ][objections and ][of]Sri K K Waghray, [Advooate for the Respondents ][ln ][Cross ][Objections]
This Court [doth Ortler ][and ][Decree as ][follows]
1 . That the [Cros;s ][Obiection filed ][by the ][Plaintiffs ][be ][and hereby ][is ][dismissed;]
and
2That there [shilll ][bre ][no ][order as to costs ][in ][this Cross Objection]
Sd/- K. [SRINIVASA RAO]JOINT REGISTRAR
&,--SECTION [OFFICER]
//TRUE GOPY//
To,
1 . The Senior [Civil Judge,Medak]2. Two CD [CoPies]
@\
HIGH COURT'
DATED: 2810212024
DECREE
CROSS OBJECTIONS
No.40305 OF 2000INAS.No.1016 of [2000]
DISMISSING THE [CROSS ][-]OBJECTIONS [WITHOUT ][COSTS]
,'.\,-t2{