APHC010036332013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS APPEAL SUIT NO: 732/2013 Between: 1. M/S. GALAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTH LTD.,(DELETED), REP. BY ITS PERSONNEL DIRECTOR, DLF PLAZA TOWERS, DLF CITY PHASE-I, HARYANA STATE. 2. M/S. GALAXO SMITHKLINE COUNSUMER HEALTH LTD., (DELETED), REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, DOWLAISWARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. M/S. GALAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTH LTD., (DELETED), REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER,H.R. A., DOWLAISWARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. HINDUSTAN UNLIEVER LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNILEVER HOUSE, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. NITYTANANDNATARAJAN, B.D SAWANTMARG, CHAKALA, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400039. 5. HINDUSTAN UNLIEVER LIMITED, REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, DOWLAISWARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. HINDUSTAN UNLIEVER LIMITED, REP BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, HRA, DOWLAISWARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. AMENDED THE CAUSE TITLE OF APPELLANT NOS 4 TO 6 AS HINDUSTAN UNLIEVER LIMITED IN THE PLACE OF M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTH LIMITED AS APPLICANT'S COMPANY MERGED WITH HINDUSTAN UNILIVER LIMITED VIDE COURT ORDER DT. 13.09.2024. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 2 1. BAVIRSETTI SATYA CHANDRA KUMARI, W/O. LATE VENKATARAMANA MURTHY, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO. 78-14-15, SYAMALANAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY. 2. BAVIRSETTI SAVITRI SRIDEVI, D/O. LATE VENKATARAMANA MURTHY, D.NO. 78-14-15. SYAMALANAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY. 3. BAVIRSETTI SATYAVATHI, W/O. LATE SATYANARAYANA, C/O. BAVIRISETTI SURESH, CONTRACT EMPLOYEE OF HORLICKS FACTORY, R/O. NETHAJINAGAR,YERRAKONDA, DOWLAISWARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2012(ASMP 2463 OF 2012 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 condone the delay of 2 days in filing the above appeal against the Judgement and decree in OS NO. 118/2009 on the file of the Court of the Ist Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, Dt. 17-4-2012 and costs and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(ASMP 2068 OF 2013 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 grant stay of execution of the decree in OS.No.118 of 2009 on the file of the court of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry dt. 17/04/2013 for an amount of Rs. 93000/- and costs IA NO: 2 OF 2013(ASMP 2956 OF 2013 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 permit the petitioners / 1st and 2nd respondents to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellants by vacating the interim order dated 27.09.2013 passed in ASMP.No.2068/2013 in AS.No.732/2013 3 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 permit the Petitioner/Appellants to file the Amendment Petition in A.S.No. 732 of 2023 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 amend the cause title as “Appellant., Hindustan Unilever Limited. Registered office at Unilever House. Represented by its Auhtorised Signatory. Mr. Nitvtanand Nataraian, B.D.Sawant Marg, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400 099” in place of Appellant No.L, M/s. Galaxo Smithkline Consumer Health Ltd., Rep.by its Personnel Director; DLF Plaza Towers, DLF City Phase-1, Haryana State; Appellant No.2. M/s. GalaxoSmithkline Consumer Health Ltd., Rep.by its General Manager, Dowlaiswaram, Rajahmundry Ruraf East Godavari District and Appellant No.3; M/s. GalaxoSmithkline Consumer Health Ltd., Rep.by its Senior Manager, H.R & A.,Dowlaiswaram, Rajahmundry Rural. East Godavari District” and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2024 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 permit the Petitioner/Appellants to file the Amendment Petition in A.S.No. 732 of 2023 and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2024 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 amend the cause title as “Appellant., 1. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Registered office at Unilever House, Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Nitytanand Natarajan, B.D.Sawant Marg, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400 099; 2. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, Dowlaiswaram, Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District, 3. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Rep. by its 4 Senior Manager, HRA,Dowlaiswaram, Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District ” in place of “Appellant No.1., M/s. GalaxoSmithkIine Consumer Health Ltd., Rep.by its Personnel Director; DLF Plaza Towers, DLF City Phase-1, Haryana State; Appellant No.2. M/s. Galaxo Smithk Iine Consumer Health Ltd., Rep.by its General Manager, Dowlaiswaram, Rajahmundry Rural,East Godavari District and Appellant No.3; M/s. GalaxoSmithkIine Consumer Health Ltd., Rep.by its Senior Manager, H.R &A.,Dowlaiswaram, Rajahmundry Rural. East Godavari District and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): VENKAT CHALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): PHANI KIRAN.M The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.118 of 2009 dated 17.04.2012 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Rajahmundry. 2. The defendant Nos.1 to 3, before the Trial Court, are the appellants herein. The respondent No.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs. The respondent No.3 is the defendant No.4. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, the proposed appellant Nos.4 to 6 were added in the place of appellant 5 Nos.1 to 3, vide order dated 13.09.2024 in I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2024, since the appellants company merged with the Hindustan Unilever Limited and the same was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, all the assets and liabilities of Glaxo Smith Kline were taken over by HUL Ltd. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Trial Court. 5. The plaintiffs instituted the suit against the defendants for recovery of death benefits of Bavirisetti Venkata Ramana Murthy (hereinafter called as “the deceased”) to a tune of Rs.6,61,185/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and for costs. 6. Before adverting the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the Trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings. 7. The case of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 in brief in the plaint was as follows: 6 i). The deceased is the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the 2nd plaintiff as well son of the defendant No.4. The deceased worked as Boiler operator in the defendants’ company and died on 19.07.2003. ii). During his life time, one J.Hari Venkatarao filed a suit against him for recovery of decree amount in E.P.No.708 of 2002 in O.S.No.111 of 2002 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Rajahmundry and attached the salary of the deceased for an amount of Rs.85,147/-. During the said proceeding, the deceased had died. iii). The Andhra Bank, Horlicks Factory Branch Manager filed a suit against the deceased and attached the death benefits of the deceased. The said liability was discharged by the original borrower by name John and deceased, who stood as surety to the original borrower. 7 iv). In E.P.No.35 of 2005 in O.S.No.614 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Ramachandrapuram, deducted the attached amount from the salary of the deceased by the salary disbursing officer and garnishee of the 3rd defendant for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. v). During the lifetime of the deceased, he maintained a locker in the defendants’ company. After the death of the deceased, the 3rd defendant without informing anything and without call for the key which is in the possession of the plaintiff, forcibly break open the locker, in which deceased placed many documents worth of Rs.50,000/- and the same was liable to be recovered from the defendants. vi). The death benefits of the deceased were not discharged to the plaintiff and the same was lying in custody of the defendants as bonus allowance, leave salary, insurance claims of the defendants’ company and funeral expenses of the deceased 8 employee altogether assessed an amount of Rs.6,61,184/- against the defendants. Inspite of repeated demands as well legal notice dated 25.08.2008 made by the plaintiffs, the defendant No.3 intentionally avoided and created mental agony to the plaintiffs for recovery of the death benefits of the deceased employee. Hence, the suit. 8. The defendant No.3 denying the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement, which was adopted by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 by filing memo, as follows: i). While the deceased is in service, they received attachment warrant from the Court of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Rajahmundry in E.P.No.608 of 2002 in O.S.No.111 of 2002 filed by one J.H.V.Rao for an amount of Rs.85,147/-, in turn, they attached the salary of the deceased and sent to Court an amount of Rs.15,630/-. ii). After the death of the deceased, on 05.03.2004, they have received an order of attachment in I.A.No.662 of 2004 in O.S.No.317 of 2004 on the file 9 of the Court of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Rajahmundry filed by the Andhra Bank, Bommuru for an amount of Rs.43,000/-. iii). Again, on 23.04.2004, another attachment warrant was issued in E.P.No.253 of 2004 in O.S.No.111 of 2002 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Rajahmundry, for a sum of Rs.74,150/-. On 10.02.2005, they received attachment warrant from the Court of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Ramachandrapuram in E.A.No.35 of 2005 in O.S.No.614 of 2003 to attach a sum of Rs.50,000/-. iv). The total amount lying with them as on the date of death of deceased is Rs.1,57,850/-, which includes salary, leave encashment, bonus, insurance, and death relief fund. By the date of receipt of attachment warrant from the Court of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Ramachandrapuram, the defendant No.3 after deducting the amounts for which warrants have been received from various Courts had an amount of Rs.40,700/-. The said amount was sent to 10 the Court concerned in pursuance of the order in E.A.No.35 of 2005 in O.S.No.614 of 2003. v). The plaintiffs also appraised these facts and also the total calculation was given. But subsequently, the plaintiffs filed P.L.C.No.294 of 2007 in which they admitted the above facts. The suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 9. On these pleadings, the Trial Court settled the following issues and an additional issue for Trial: “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as prayed for? and 2.To what relief?” 10. At the Trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined while relying on Exs.A.1 to A.20 in support of their contentions. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.21 were marked. 11. Basing on the material and evidence, Trial Court came to conclusion that the claim of the plaintiffs is partly allowed in respect of the insurance amount, death relief fund and also an amount Rs.43,000/- attached in O.S.No.317 of 2004, 11 thereby, directed the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to release an amount of Rs.1,93,000/- along with interest accrued on the above amounts if any which are lying in their hands, thus, decreed the suit partly against defendant Nos.1 to 3 and dismissed the suit against defendant No.4. 12. It is against this decree and judgment, the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 preferred this appeal. 13. Heard Sri Maruthi Sankar, learned counsel representing Sri Venkata Challa, learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.Phani Kiran, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs. 14. Sri Maruthi Sankar, learned counsel representing Sri Venkata Challa, learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 submits that there are several attachments made against the salary of the deceased, which are not in dispute and after deducting the amounts for the said attachments, the remaining amount is only Rs.40,700/- pertaining to the deceased, but the said fact was not considered by the Trial Court and erroneously directed the appellants to release an amount of Rs.1,93,000/-; that the Trial Court grossly erred in 12 holding that the death relief fund of Rs.50,000/- is not liable for attachment, but the same is not exempted under Section 60 C.P.C.; that the Trial Court totally made wrong calculations and awarded excess amount than what is actually due to the plaintiffs, thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. 15. Per contra, Sri M.Phani Kiran, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs submits that the Trial Court after considering the material on record rightly calculated the death benefits of the deceased entitled by the plaintiffs; that admittedly the plaintiffs entitled for the insurance amount as well death relief fund, which cannot be denied by the defendants; that as per the calculation made in P.L.C.No.2947 of 2007 preferred by the plaintiffs and amount of Rs.43,000/- is lying with the defendants, which is not attached, thereby, the same is entitled by the plaintiffs; that there are no valid grounds urged by the appellants to meddle with the well-articulated judgment of the Trial Court, thereby, prays to dismiss the appeal with costs. 13 16. It is against this backdrop, the only point that arises for determination need consideration now, “Whether the Trial Court is justified in calculating the death benefits of the deceased entitled by the plaintiffs?” 17. POINT: Before deciding the above point, this Court would like to refer certain admitted facts as culled from the record. 18. The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.4 are the wife, daughter, and mother of the deceased, respectively. The deceased worked as Boiler operator in the defendants’ company, died on 19.07.2003 and he got service of 34 years and 9 months in view of Exs.B.15, B.17, and B.20. Admittedly, the plaintiffs did not prefer any appeal against the findings of the Trial Court regarding quantum of death benefits of the deceased entitled by them from the defendants. Furthermore, it cannot be denied by the plaintiffs that there are certain attachments over the salary of the deceased during his lifetime itself as per the directions of the Court concerned. More so, it is also not denied by the plaintiffs by way of any appeal that there is no proof to show 14 that the deceased was allotted any locker, which is in the custody of the defendant No.3 and there are valuables in the said locker. 19. It is also categorical from the testimony of plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 that they approached the legal cell authority, wherein passed an order that as per the calculation memo, the total amount lying with the management payable to the deceased is Rs.1,57,850/- and a sum of Rs.40,700/- has been deposited in the Court of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Ramachandrapuram and Rs.74,150/- was yet to be sent to the Court of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Rajahmundry. As well when the defendants represented that a sum of Rs.43,000/- is lying with them, which is not attached, and they have no objection to release the same, the Trial Court rightly ordered for release of the same in favour of the plaintiffs. 20. Even the plaintiffs claimed Rs.1,25,000/- towards insurance, but the defendants showed the same as Rs.1,00,000/- only. Even Ex.B.18 clearly shows that the insurance amount that has to be paid to the plaintiff is 15 Rs.1,00,000/-. The plaintiffs claimed earned leave and bonus allowance of Rs.20,000/-, but the defendants have shown the leave encashment as Rs.3,767/- only, bonus Rs.3,290/- and salary of Rs.793/-. However, it is admittedly shown by the defendants that the death benefit relief as Rs.50,000/-, which is not claimed by the plaintiffs as well exempted for attachment under Section 60 of C.P.C. 21. It is also not in dispute that the gratuity is assessed as Rs.1,47,125/- in view of the length of service rendered by the deceased and was paid to the plaintiffs on 22.11.2003 under Exs.B.19 and B.20. 22. Furthermore, having regard to the above, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Trial Court after elaborate appreciation of the matter rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff may get the remaining amount i.e., leave encashment, bonus and salary subject to getting raising of attachment orders from the Courts concerned and there is no evidence to show that the plaintiff No.1 is entitled to receive the funeral expenses as claimed. 16 23. In view of the above, it is absolutely right on the part of the Trial Court to direct the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to release the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards insurance, Rs.50,000/- as death relief fund and Rs.43,000/- attached in O.S.No.317 of 2004, in-total Rs.1,93,000/-, which are even statutorily entitled by the plaintiffs. None of the grounds urged by the defendant are valid to interfere with the well-articulated judgment passed by the Trial Court, as such, the present appeal has no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 24. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.118 of 2009 dated 17.04.2012 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Rajahmundry. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 27.10.2025 Krs 17 361 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS APPEAL SUIT No.732 of 2013 ( JUDGMENT ) DATE: 27.10.2025 Krs