Telangana High Court
B. Jaisoorya, vs D. Ramakrishna Reddy, on 10 March, 2023
Bench: A.Santhosh Reddy
HE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
C.R.P.No.6740 OF 2017
ORDER:
This civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed
against the order dated 03.11.2017 in E.P.No.2 of 2016 in
M.V.O.P.No.1141 of 2002, on the file of the Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge-cum-
VII-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein
the execution petition filed by the revision petitioners/decree holders
under Order XXI Rule 43 and Order XXI Rule 64 CPC against
respondent No.2/judgment debtor No.2 for attachment of moveable
property in realization of the decretal amount, was dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3. The revision petitioners/decree holders filed execution
petition under Order XXI Rule 43 and Order XXI Rule 64 CPC
against respondent No.2/judgment debtor No.2 for attachment
of moveable property in realization of the decretal amount.
Respondent No.2/insurer resisted the said petition stating that as per
orders of this Court in M.A.C.M.A.No.1389 of 2006, the insurer
deposited a cheque bearing No.458656 dated 12.03.2015 for a sum
of Rs.13,10,885/- being 75% of the amount awarded by this Court,
including interest, after deducting a sum of Rs.1,41,284/- towards
TDS. In view of the same, JDr.No.2 is not liable to pay the amount
of Rs.8,00,251/- as claimed in the EP and that JDr.No.2 has already
deposited the sum of Rs.13,10,385/- plus Rs.65,914/- and the decree
holder cannot claim further amount which is against the judgment
passed by this Court. On a consideration of the material on record,
the trial Court, by the impugned order dated 03.11.2017, dismissed
the execution petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court
committed error in dismissing the execution petition, as the final
order passed by this Court in M.A.C.M.A.No.1389 of 2006 directed
the respondents to pay the enhanced compensation amount from
Rs.50,000/- to Rs.10,61,000/-. This Court has not given any finding
on apportionment of compensation between the lorry driver and the
deceased at 75% and 25%. Therefore, learned counsel prayed to set
aside the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2, while
supporting the impugned order, submits that the trial Court has
rightly appreciated the judgment of this Court whereunder
negligence was apportioned between the lorry driver and the
deceased at 75% and 25% and they have complied with the orders of
this Court. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the execution
petition and needs no interference.
6. A perusal of the record would disclose that the revision
petitioners filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1389 of 2006 against the order and
decree dated 24.03.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.1141 of 2002, on the file of
the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI
Additional Chief Judge-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Hyderabad. The said appeal was disposed of by this Court by
judgment dated 20.10.2014. In the said appeal, this Court framed
the following points for consideration:
i. Whether the deceased alone was negligent or whether
the lorry driver was also negligent?
ii. What is the quantum of compensation to which the
claimants are entitled to?
7. On point No.1, this Court held that negligence has to be
apportioned between the lorry driver and the deceased at 75%
and 25%. While disposing of the appeal, this Court passed the
following order:
"Accordingly, the MACMA is allowed enhancing
compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.10,61,000/-. The same
shall be apportioned to the claimants equally. The enhanced
compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. However, in
the circumstances, no costs.
8. Though this Court has not specifically observed in the
operative portion of the judgment that the compensation amount has
to be apportioned between the lorry driver and the deceased at
75% and 25%, it appears that respondent No.2 had rightly deposited
the sum of Rs.13,10,885/- being 75% of the amount awarded by this
Court, including interest, after deducting a sum of Rs.1,41,284/-
towards TDS.
9. The trial Court had rightly appreciated the finding of this
Court on point No.1 stated above and had rightly held that
respondent No.2 had complied with the judgment and decree of this
Court by depositing 75% of the liability and, therefore, the claim of
petitioners for 100% compensation on Rs.10,61,000/- is not
maintainable and the EP was rightly dismissed.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the trial Court
had not committed any error and there is no infirmity and illegality
in the impugned order. Respondent No.2 had rightly deposited the
compensation amount being 75% of the awarded amount and the
contention of the revision petitioners that 100% of the compensation
amount awarded in the said appeal has to be paid by respondent
No.2, is not tenable.
11. In the result, civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.
_______________________
A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J
10.03.2023
Lrkm
