Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Mannepalli Sakuntala on 5 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: MACMA.No.434 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No. NOTE
7 05.05.2023 Dr. KMR,J
I.A.No.1 of 2022
This application is filed to condone the
delay of 38 days in filing the Appeal.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the respondents
reported no objection to condone the delay.
Accordingly, I.A. is allowed and the delay
of 38 days in filing the Appeal is condoned.
________
Dr. KMR,J
I.A.No.1 of 2023
This application is filed to declare the
petitioners as Majors and to discharge the 2nd
respondent from the guardianship in the interest
of justice. They have filed Photostat copies of
the Board of Secondary Grade Education
Certificate and Aadhar Card as proof of service
for attaining their majority.
Learned counsel for the appellant
reported no objection.
For the reasons stated in the
accompanying affidavit filed in support of the
petition, I.A. is allowed.
________
Dr. KMR,J
I.A.No.2 of 2023
This application is filed to vacate the
interim stay granted on 04.11.2022 in I.A.No.2
of 2022 in MACMA.No.434 of 2022 and permit
the Petitioners/Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to
withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant
in MVOP.No.660 of 2015 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-I Additional
Judge, Eluru, pursuant to the interim order
passed by this Court in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in
MACMA.No.434 of 2022, dated 04.11.2022.
Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that in compliance to the order of this
Court dated 04.11.2022, the appellant has
deposited 50% of the amount to the credit of
MVOP.
In view of the same, the
Petitioners/Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are permitted
to withdraw the amount deposited by the
appellant to the credit of MVOP in accordance
with the arrangement made by the Tribunal in
the impugned order.
Accordingly, I.A. is allowed.
________
Dr. KMR,J
MACMA.No.434 of 2022
Both the counsels present.
Mr.N.Anjaneya Charyulu, learned counsel
for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 represented that
he filed a Memo dated 09.03.2023 stating that
the 4th respondent, namely Mannepalli Chandra
Rao, who is the father of the deceased, was
died. Inadvertently, the remaining claimants did
not inform the same to the trial Court through
their Advocate due to lack of legal knowledge
and as such, the same was not recorded in the
decree and judgment, and award was also
granted to the death person, i.e., 4th
respondent, instead of appointing the same to
the remaining claimants, as he is the father of
deceased and only dependant. In view of the
same, he needs to take steps with regard to 4th
respondent.
In view of the Memo filed by the
Respondents 1 to 3, there is no need to bring
the L.Rs of the 4th respondent on record,
because he is not having any legal heir.
Apportionment will be decided at the time of
final hearing.
Admit.
Post the matter for final hearing on
04.09.2023.
________
Dr. KMR,J
SNI/HS
