Telangana High Court
Sk. Rafi Ahmed vs Smt. Boyanapalli Madhavi, on 28 February, 2022
Bench: M.Laxman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1428 of 2014
ORDER :
The present revision has been directed against the order
dated 27.01.2014 in I.A.No.1183 of 2013 in M.V.O.P.No.814 of
2013 on the file of Principal District Judge, Khammam, wherein
and whereby, the application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2
herein under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC for attachment before
judgment in respect of retirement benefits, was allowed.
2. The revision petitioner is respondent No.1, respondent Nos.1
and 2 herein are the claimants and respondent No.3 herein is
respondent No.2 before the trial Court. For clarity, the ranks of the
parties as were referred in the main O.P., is maintained.
3. The claimants filed the MVOP claiming compensation of
Rs.50 Lakhs for the death of Mr.Chinna Venkateswara Rao, who is
the husband of Claimant No.1 and father of Claimant No.2 in the
motor vehicle accident occurred on 30.03.2013 at about 3.00 p.m.
in the outskirts of Narketpally near Venugopala Swamy Arch. At
the time of accident, respondent No.1 was driving the car bearing
ML, J
CRP.No.1428 of 2014
No.AP-09-AJ-8453, which was owned by respondent No.2. The
accident occurred on account of rashness of the driver of the
vehicle i.e. respondent No.1. The deceased as well as respondent
No.1 were working in the same Department. They went to
Hyderabad on official work and while they were returning, the
present accident occurred. The pleadings further shows that
respondent No.1 was about to retire and he intended to shift his
residence to abroad and the 2nd respondent's whereabouts were not
known and the vehicle is not insured. In the said circumstances,
the attachment was sought.
4. Respondent No.1 contested the claim stating that the
retirement benefits are exempted from attachment under Section 60
of CPC and prayed to dismiss the application.
5. The trial Court, after considering the requirement of Order
38 Rule 5 of CPC and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court
in Doppalapudi Viswanadha Rao v. Gujjarlapudi Koteswara
Rao & another1, held that the retirement benefits can be attached
Law Summary 2001(3) 316
ML, J
CRP.No.1428 of 2014
subject to exemption under Section 60 of CPC. Aggrieved by the
same, the present revision has been filed.
6. The contention in the revision is that respondent No.1 is not
liable to pay any amounts to claimants and further, the retirement
benefits cannot be attached. On the contrary, the learned counsel
representing the claimants argued that the Police records clearly
establishes prima facie negligence on the part of respondent No.1
and it was also their case that the vehicle is not insured. In these
circumstances, if the retirement benefits are not attached, it is
difficult for them to execute the Award and it was also contended
that attachment was ordered subject to conditions under Section 60
of CPC only and requires no interference.
7. The claim petition has been filed basing on the prima facie
material made out from the Police records. There is no serious
dispute from respondent No.1 that at the time of accident, he was
driving the vehicle and it is also not disputed that the crime vehicle
was not insured. Respondent No.1 also did not challenge the claim
of the revision petitioners that after retirement, the 1st respondent is
ML, J
CRP.No.1428 of 2014
trying to shift his residence to abroad. The trial Court, after
noticing the decision of Apex Court in Doppalapudi Viswanadha
Rao's case (cited supra), has ordered attachment subject to
conditions of Section 60 of CPC and the revision petitioners failed
to make out any case that the retirement benefits subject to Section
60 of CPC cannot be attached. In these circumstances, I do not
find any merit in the revision petition.
8. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as
to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
M. LAXMAN, J
Date: 28.02.2022
ajr
