The High Court · 2025

3. Kumbhampati Krishna Rao, S/o. Sri Ramulu aged 72 years, occupation: Retd. employee R/o Lakkineni vari street, Kalluru (V) Khammam District AND ... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

1. Sandeep kumar Pushpala, S/o Jeevan, Aged: Major , occupation: Driver-cum- Owner Of Car bearing No. TS 09 FB 8048 R/o H.No. 1-6-202118, Bapuji nagar Musheerabad, Hyderabad 500020

2. The New lndia Assurance Co- Ltd, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, T.P-Claims Hub, 5th floor, Surya Towers, SP Road, Secunderabad 500003 .,RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in lVl.V.O,P. No. 405 of 2022 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, at Sathupalli, pending disposal of the above Civil lt/iscellaneous Appeal. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri N V Anantha Krishna Counsel for the Respondents: The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.100 of 2025 Osth DAY OF DECEMBBR,2025 Between: PrLsala Sri Rama C--hanakya and two others. AND Sandeep Kumar Pushpala and another .IUDGMENT: ...Appellants ...Respondents I{eard Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the appellants Pcrused the entire record.

7. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated

17.02,2025 passed by the leamed VI Additional District Judge, Sathupally, ('Tribtrnal') in I.A.No. I of 2024 in M.V.O.P.No.405 of 2022, wherein a pctition llled to restore the M.V.O.P., which was dismissed for default, has been dismissed.

3. The appellants herein have filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.26,00,000/- on account of death of one Pusala Kalyani, in a road traffic accident. The said claim petition was coming for evidence of the appellants herein. In spite of giving 15 adjoumments for more than RY,J CI\4A 100=2025 one year, the appellants failed to lead evidence. Therel rre, the M.V.O.P. was dismissed tbr default. Thereafter, the l.A. under ap1 eal has been flled seeking restoration. The reason cited for non-appearancr: and lailure to lead evidencc was that appcllant No.I was a B. Tech stud,: tt and the college authorities did not grant leave to him and that his advocz te rvas engaged in another Couft u,hen the M.V.O.P. was dismissed lor de. r ult. l'hese reasons were lound to be unconvincing, as the M.V.O.P rs not I led hv onc clairn petitioner, but tlirec claim petitioners. There are two oth,: clairn petitioners, who are appellant Nos.2 and 3 herein, who could lr tve led evideuce Theretbre, it is hetd that the inability of appellant No. notwithstanding, appellant Nos.2 and 3 could have commenced trial by Ii ing their evidence in chief. Further, it is held that the petition which is s,.r rposed to be tlled under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC for restoration is filed ur ler Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, which does not provide the relief sought for b r the appellants. It is held that the appellants have negligently filed the pel ,tion under wrong provision of law'. Hence, the I.A. was dismissed.

4. In grounds of appeal, it is pleaded that a casc for compensation which is filed pursuant to a social security and beneficirLl legislation cannot be denied by giving an escape route to the wrongdoer. Ir is pleaded that the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts have t r re and again held 2 RY,,I cMA 100 2025 that quoting a wrong provision does uot bai the Court to grant relief. It is pleaded that the Tribunal ought not to have tiewed the case in technical perspective but ought to havc considered whether the reason cited for thc abser,ce of the appetlants on 02.07.2024 is reasonable or not? Lastly, it is pleaded that the Tribunal on the prernises that the absence of the appellant does not seem to be genuine and believable has dismissed the interlocutory application.

5. Leamed counsel for thc ap.rpeilants submitted that the appellants could not lead ei,idence as appellant No.I was studf ing B.Tech and rvas unable to take leave from his classes to lead evidence, whereas the appellant Nos.2 and 3 are seniol citizens, who could not iead evidence duc to certain limitations. Therefore, there rvas delay in leading the evidence. Il. is submitted that dcspite the fact that thcre was delay in lcading the evidence, the Tribunal could have always given an opportunity to lead evidence by imposing terms and conditions such as imposing costs for delay. Instead, the Tribunal has dismissed the application and thereby denied opportunity for the appellants to seek compensation on account of death of Pusala Kalyani, who was the daughter of appellant Nos.2 and 3. It is submitted that there was no opposition on the part of the respondents and the same was reported to the Court orally stating no objection and no I t 1i RY,J cMA 100 2025 counter was filed. Despite the same, the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim petition.

6. When the case ol the appellants is considere,l it is seen that appellant Nos.2 and 3 are senior citizens, aged 63 v,: .rs and 72 years respectively and they may lrave their own lirnitations in eading evidence. Appellant No. I is a student studying B.Tcch and there I rre, it is possible that he was unable to take leave from his classes to lcir Ievidence in the claim petition. trhile thcrc is substance in the finding of t re Tribunal about the appellants not Lrtilizing 15 adjournments and one y: u of time period granted liberally lor leading evidence, the same canno be a ground to totally deny the appellants' case lor seeking compensatio r that too under a social welfare legislation. In case, the appellants are deri:d opportunitl,to seek compensation, they would losc the opportunity oncr for all and there will-be no relief that can be sotrght by them belore rny other forum. Therefore, the TLibunal ought to have considered the case of the appellants for allowing or enabling the appellants to lead evidence t y irnposing costs and by granting limited adjournment

7. Furlher, the second reason cited for dismissal o:' the interlocutory application is filing of the petition under wrong prov sion of law. As ah'eady urged by the appellants, wrong provision of larv c I nnot be a ground 4 I! RY,J cMA 100 2025 for denying relief. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appellants are entitled to relief sub.iect to payment of costs. Further, the appellants shall bc given one opporlunity to lead evidence by ascertaining the convenience to lead oidcnce and on such date the appellants shall lead evidence u'ithout fhii

8. In the result. the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside tlrc impugncd order dated 17.02.2025 in LA.No.1 of 2024 in MVOP No.405 o| 2022, or1 the file of VI Additional District Judge at Sathupally, sub.iect to payrnent ol costs of Rs.500/- payable to the High Court Legal Scrvices Comrnittee within 14 davs fiom the date ol this order. On pavrnent of such costs, the M.V.O.P. shall be restored to its original file Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/- A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII To, SECTION OFFICER 1 The Vl Additional District Judge, at Sathupalti. 2. One CC to Sri N V Anantha Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 3 The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad 4 Two CD Copies 6 5;1lpsl HIGH COURT DATED: 0511212025 I JUDGMENT CMA.No.100 of 2025 .;,' l,:i5 t:t 2 t tEB zur c O {r \-. ,*' -,: '-i- ALLOWING THE APPEAL T$