HC Imposes Heavy Costs on former Chairperson of Adibatla Municipality

The judge also lamented the counsel appearing for parties for his behaviour. The court pulled him up for addressing the court in a high-pitched voice and in an intimidating manner. The judge passed the order in a writ petition filed by Kotha Arthica challenging a notice issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, Ibrahimpatnam, qua election to fill up the casual vacancy in the office of chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality.

It is the case of the petitioner that she was elected as a ward member of the Adibatla Municipality and thereafter was elected as the chairperson of the said municipality and is continuing to function as such. Per contra, it was argued by the government pleader that the petitioner was removed from the office of chairperson in a no-confidence motion moved on February 09, 2024. Consequently, a casual vacancy arose in the office of the chairperson of the said Municipality. He would further contend that the petitioner having unsuccessfully challenged the motion of no-confidence moved against her, and fully being aware of her not holding the position of chairperson of the Municipality continuing to claim as chairperson both in the cause title of the writ petition as well as in the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner only goes to show that the petitioner has approached this court by suppressing the true and correct facts. The judge dismissing the petition said, “Petitioner seeks to gain the sympathy of the court by pleading that she is a woman and belonging to Backward Class, which factor does not have any bearing to the election of the chairperson of the municipality, which position the petitioner herself had enjoyed for over three years. The said conduct of the petitioner only goes to show that the petitioner believes in adopting the approach of approbate and reprobate to suit her convenience and suffers from selective amnesia.”

Justice Vinod Kumar while observing the conduct of the counsels addressing the court said, “It is to be noted that the said conduct on the part of the counsel which obstructs the administration of justice amounts to Misconduct under Section 35 the Advocates Act having a wider import.” He also added that “Counsels who adopt such practices are jeopardising the harmony with the bench along with their professional careers, by ignoring the fact that they are not only required to conduct the case in a fair manner, but while doing so they are also officers of the Court.”

HC hikes accident compensation amount

Justice K. Surender of the Telangana High Court enhanced the motor accidents compensation by approximately by over Rs 2 lakh payable to a software engineer who suffered a road accident while he was proceeding on his two-wheeler near Prakashnagar Flyover Bridge. The claimant met with a road accident on the midnight of July 24, 2001, when he was travelling on a two-wheeler. An Ambassador car came in the opposite direction and hit the two-wheeler, resulting in injuries to him. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hyderabad, granted total compensation of Rs 1,22,800 under different heads with 9 per cent interest to be paid by M/s Oriental Insurance company and the owner of the car. The appellant has completed MCA in MVJ College of Engineering and the study certificate was not produced before the Trial Court since there was no dispute regarding the salary certificate. The trial court erred in considering the income of the appellant as that of a daily wage labourer at Rs 1,000 per month. He also took cognisance to the specific finding of the claimant that he is a graduate and as on date of accident, he was working as a Software Engineer in M/s. Interactive Education Software Systems and earning an amount of Rs 5,000 per month. The judge accordingly faulted the income assessment at rupees thousand. The court pointed out that the claimant was entitled to compensation basing his income at Rs 5,000 per month worked on an age expectation of another 25 years.

Applying the multiplier system to the compensation payable for future income was enhanced from Rs 40,000 to Rs 2 lakh. The judge also made clear that the enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

He directed that the insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.