THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., vs GUDDU GURRAMMA & 4 OTHERS Advocate - HEMANTH KUMAR VENNA — MACMA/2294/2015
Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th April 2026.
CNR: APHC010676072015
Filing Number
MACMA/11682/2015
Filing Date
10-Apr-2015
Registration No
MACMA/2294/2015
Registration Date
19-Oct-2015
Judge
A. Hari Haranadha Sarma
Coram
A. Hari Haranadha Sarma
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
MACMA ( 18 )
Sub-Category
MACMA(DEATH) ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
CIVIL Section
Decision Date
10-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 14-May-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
Adv. GUDI SRINIVASU
Respondent(s)
-
1.GUDDU GURRAMMA & 4 OTHERS Advocate - HEMANTH KUMAR VENNA
-
2.Giddu Siva Jyothi
-
3.Goddu Siva Prasad
-
4.Goddu Siva Sankar
-
5.Shaik Rafi
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Apr-2026
A. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF
Court Decision Summary The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed Oriental Insurance Company's appeal and enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs.20,38,715 to Rs.24,18,311 for the deceased watchman's family. The court upheld the tribunal's review power to correct apparent errors (wrong age and multiplier calculations) and rejected the insurer's argument that pension/compassionate appointment should reduce compensation, establishing that such benefits don't constitute deductible "pecuniary advantage" under motor vehicle law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
22-Dec-2025
A. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF
-
19-Dec-2025
Final Hearing
A. Hari Haranadha Sarma
-
12-Dec-2025
A. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF
-
29-Apr-2025
Final Hearing
Dr V R K Krupa Sagar
-
16-Apr-2025
Final Hearing
Dr V R K Krupa Sagar
-
17-Jul-2017
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Apr-2015
Case filed
Registration No. MACMA/2294/2015
Court Decision Summary The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed Oriental Insurance Company's appeal and enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs.20,38,715 to Rs.24,18,311 for the deceased watchman's family. The court upheld the tribunal's review power to correct apparent errors (wrong age and multiplier calculations) and rejected the insurer's argument that pension/compassionate appointment should reduce compensation, establishing that such benefits don't constitute deductible "pecuniary advantage" under motor vehicle law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts