Miss. Pallavi v. Sri. Sadiq Syed Gafar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
This Miscellaneous First Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the Joint
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. This Miscellaneous First Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the Joint memo. The Judgment and Award of the Tribunal shall stand modified accordingly. Draw up the Award accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- MEMBER MCR
Judgment
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, MEMBER & M.F.A.No. 476/2023 (MV) (Lok Adalat No. 2426/2024) BETWEEN:
#1. Miss. Pallavi,
#3. D/o. Late Jaganath Nayak @ Jaganath, Aged about 28 years, Sri. Lohith Kumar S.J., S/o. Late Jaganath Nayak @ Jaganath, Aged about 33 years, Smt. Mangala Bai, W/o. Late Jathra Nayak, Aged about 76 years, All are R/at Somanahalli Village, Ganadhalu Post, Huliyar Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumakuru District, Pin-572218. ...APPELLANTS (By Sri. Gangaraju C., Advocate) AND 1 . Sri. Sadiq Syed Gafar, S/o Gafar Sab,
#3. 2 Aged about 56 years, R/at No.27, Abusabarapalya Village, Yalanadu, Huliyar Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumakuru District-572218. (RC owner of Tractor-Trailer Bearing No.KA-36-TA-7413 And Chasis No.172019). Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., No.5/4, 3rd Floor, S. V. Arcade, Bilekahalli Main Road, Bilekahalli Office, B. G. Road, IIM Post, Bengaluru-560076. Rep. by Manager. (Insurer of Tractor bearing No.KA-.36-TA-7413) Policy No.10003/31/20/559028 Valid from 27-3-2020 to 26-3-2021. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., No.25/1, 2nd Floor, Shankar Narayan Building, M. G. Road, Bengaluru-560001, Rep. by Manager. (Insurer of Trailer bearing Chasis No.172019), (Policy No.2354100553315800000 Valid from 15-10-2019 to 14-10-2020). ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Anup Seetharam Rao, Advocate for R-2; Sri. B. Pradeep, Advocate for R-3) MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.07.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3200/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDL. JUDGE OF SMALL CAUSES COURT, ACMM AND MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-23), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. 3 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS PASSED. CONCILIATION ORDER The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants - Claimants is present. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents – Insurance Companies along with their representative are present.
#2. After prolonged negotiations, the matter is settled. A joint memo signed by the learned advocate appearing for the appellants/claimants (being authorized by the appellants/claimants to sign) and the learned advocate appearing for the respondents-Insurance Companies and its authorized officer is filed. The appellants-claimants have agreed to receive and the 2nd respondent- Shriram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., and 3rd respondent - HDFC Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., have agreed to pay a lump-sum of Rs.3,10,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) (in the ratio of 50% each respectively, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, in full and final settlement of the claim.
#3. The 2nd respondent - Shriram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., and 3rd respondent - HDFC Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., have agreed to deposit their respective liability before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of preparation of award, 4 failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date of default, till the date of deposit.
#4. The entire enhanced compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant / claimant, on proper identification.
#5. This Miscellaneous First Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the Joint memo. The Judgment and Award of the Tribunal shall stand modified accordingly. Draw up the Award accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- MEMBER MCR
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This Miscellaneous First Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the Joint
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173(1).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.