Telangana High Court
Sk. Raheemunnisa And 5 Others vs Apsrtc., And 2 Others on 27 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.548 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the
order dated 15.02.2013 passed in I.A.No.52 of 2013 in
O.P.No.76 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (FTC), Asifabad
(for short 'the Tribunal).
2. Heard Mrs. T.Kanya Kumari, learned counsel,
representing Mr. Lakkadi Dayaker Reddy, learned counsel
for appellants, and Mr. Anjaiah Kandula, learned Standing
Counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
3. I.A.No.52 of 2013 was filed by appellants/petitioners
under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC for
restoration of O.P.No.76 of 2010 setting aside the dismissal
order dated 20.12.2012. Tribunal by order, dated
15.02.2013, in I.A.No.52 of 2013 in O.P.No.76 of 2010,
passed the following order:
"On clear perusal of the Docket order gross negligence
found on the petitioner counsel by non-represented the
JAK, J
C.M.A.No.548 _2013
matter before the Court number of times. Hence this
petition is dismissed."
4. I.A.No.52 of 2013 was filed on 07.01.2013 i.e., within
three weeks from the date of dismissal order, in spite of
which, Tribunal passed order dated 15.02.2013, without
assigning any reasons.
5. The affidavit filed by appellants/petitioners in I.A.No.52
of 2013 is as follows:
"2. That, the above O.P was last posted on
20.12.2012 for trial finally and on that day the same
was informed to me by my counsel to present at
Asifabad to adduce evidence on our behalf, but since
their was marriage in our blood related family I
informed our counsel that I could not attend the court
on the above mentioned date and requested my
counsel to seek a short adjournment and in turn our
advocate on record requested his counterpart advocate
at Asifabad to represent the case and seek a short
adjournment and by the time he reached the Hon'ble
Court after attending work in a another court in the
same building and by the time he reached this Hon'ble
Court, the Hon'ble Court was dismiss the O.P. for
default as there was no representation on behalf of the
petitioners as well as their counsel on record. That,
about two days back I met my counsel at Adilabad and
came to know that the above O.P. was dismissed for
default on 20.12.2012, and the same was informed to
me by our counsel and filing present applicant for
Restoration of the above O.P. without the delay.
3. That, the absence of the petitioners as well as
their counsel on 20.12.2012 was neither willful nor
wanton but for the reason stated supra. It is further
submitted that the petitioners have very good case to
defend and fare chances of success in case the above
JAK, J
C.M.A.No.548 _2013
O.P. is not restored to its original number the petitioner
will be put to heavy hardship and irreparable loss."
6. It is a case of death of a Coolie (one Shaik Amul
Haman), accident occurred on 04.11.2008 at about 10:00
A.M., near Hi-Tech City, Gate Mancherial. He was treated at
Government Area Hospital, Mancherial, and while
undergoing treatment, he died. Income of the deceased
claimed as Rs.150/- per day. Compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-
is claimed by applicants i.e., wife (petitioner No.1) and
children (petitioner Nos.2 to 6) of deceased.
7. Order, dated 15.02.2013, is bereft of reasons. O.P. is of
the year 2010. Not an iota of consideration of the grounds
in affidavit are reflected in the order. I.A.No.52 of 2013
was filed in January, 2013, dismissed in February, 2013.
C.M.A. is filed in June, 2013. C.M.A was not listed frequently
after filing in 2013. For the lapses on the part of the
counsel, O.P.No.76 of 2010 was dismissed on 20.12.2012.
Furthermore, this appeal is listed before this Court in 2025.
8. This Court does not find any reason to accede to the
contentions made by the learned Standing Counsel
JAK, J
C.M.A.No.548 _2013
appearing on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company,
opposing the C.M.A. It is a case of death, matter is listed
after 11 long years. This Court deems it appropriate to allow
the appeal subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- by
appellants to respondent No.3-Insurance Company, in the
interests of justice.
9. Needless to state that on filing of proof of payment of
costs before the Tribunal with a Memo/application to restore
O.P.No.76 of 2010, the same shall be restored to the file of
Tribunal and O.P. shall be disposed of as expeditiously as
possible.
10. At this juncture, learned Standing Counsel for
Insurance Company submitted that interest part on the
compensation awarded, to be deposited, in the event of O.P.
being decided in favour of the applicants, the Insurance
Company should not be directed to pay interest as CM.A., is
filed on 30.04.2013 and is disposed on 27.06.2025. That the
period from 30.04.2013 to 27.06.2025 should be excluded
for levy of interest, as the matter was pending consideration
before this Court. The said contention is valid, this Court
JAK, J
C.M.A.No.548 _2013
directs the Tribunal not to award interest for the period
which the C.M.A., is pending before this Court. C.M.A. was
filed on 30.04.2013 and disposed of on 27.06.2025. This
period shall be excluded for levy of interest, on the
compensation, if any, awarded to applicants of the deceased.
11. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
allowed by setting aside the order dated 15.02.2013 passed
in I.A.No.52 of 2013 in O.P.No.76 of 2010 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge
(FTC), Asifabad, on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
five thousand only) by the appellants to respondent No.3-
Insurance Company.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date:27.06.2025
KRR
