Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chakravadhanula Sivaji Dhaveji vs Kavuru Srinivasa Rao And Another on 24 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE NO.: M.A.C.M.A.No.1387 of 2006
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.No. Date ORDER OFFICE
NOTE
(09) 24.09.2021 MGR, J
I.A.No.1 of 2019
&
MACMA.MP.No.4594 of 2016
Heard learned counsel appearing for the
proposed petitioners/appellants 2 to 6 and the learned
standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/
insurance company.
The facts that lead to filing of I.A.No.1 of 2019,
in brief, are as follows:
M.V.O.P.No.516 of 2004 was filed by the injured
claimant claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for
the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle
accident. The learned Chairman, MACT-cum-VI
Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsapur,
partly allowed the claim granting compensation of
Rs.75,000/- with proportionate interest thereon @ 9%
per annum from the date of the petition till
realization, vide decree & judgment dated 31.03.2006.
Not satisfied with the compensation awarded,
the appellant preferred this appeal. This Court, vide
judgment dated 12.02.2019, partly allowed the appeal
enhancing the compensation from Rs.75,000/- to
Rs.2,05,000/-. The respondents were directed to
deposit the entire compensation amount to the credit
of the OP along with proportionate costs and interest
after adjusting the amount, if any already deposited.
During the pendency of the appeal, the sole
appellant/injured died intestate, on 16.07.2016,
leaving behind him his wife and children, who are
petitioners 2 to 6 herein. Hence, petition in
M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.4594 of 2019 was filed, on
19.09.2016, to bring on record petitioners 2 to 6 as
legal heirs of the deceased sole appellant and to
prosecute the appeal.
Due to inadvertent mistake/oversight of the
office, the fact of filing of LR petition by the proposed
legal representatives/petitioners 2 to 6 was not
brought to the notice of this Court at the time of
passing the final judgment. Hence, the proposed
petitioners 2 to 6/ appellants 2 to 6, who are the legal
heirs of the deceased 1st appellant, have come up with
this application.
In view of the above facts and submissions,
which are not disputed, this Court is of the opinion
that the proposed petitioners 2 to 6 can be permitted
to come on record as appellants 2 to 6, they being the
legal representatives of the deceased 1st appellant.
Accordingly, in the judgment dated 12.02.2019,
passed in M.A.C.M.A 1387 of 2006, the word
"appellant" shall be substituted with "1st appellant"
and in the last paragraph of the judgment, the word
"appellant" shall be substituted with "appellants 2 to
6, who are the legal representatives of the deceased
1st appellant".
Both the applications are ordered accordingly.
Registry is directed to amend the cause title and
issue revised copy of the judgment accordingly.
______
MGR, J
