Smt. Somamma v. Sri Manjunatha
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
SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, MEMBER & M.F.A.No. 2939/2019 (MV) (Lok Adalat No. 22/2023) BETWEEN:
#3. Smt. Somamma, W/o Sri. Sannegowda @ Mogannagowda, Aged about 48 years, Sri. U.S. Venkatesh, S/o. Sri. Sannegowda @ Mogannagowda, Aged about 29 years, Both are residents of Undadihalli Village, Amble Post, Chikkamgaluru Taluk And District. Smt. Chandrakala, D/o Sri. Sannegowda @ Mogannagowda, Aged about 28 years, W/o Sri. Mallikarjuna, R/o Yerehalli( V), Bennur Post, Belur Tq., Hassan District-573201. ...APPELLANTS (By Sri. Vinod Gowda, Advocate) 2 AND 1 . Sri Manjunatha, S/o Sri. Kempaiah, Aged 46 years, R/o Santhe Market, Tamil Colony, Chikkamagaluru.
#2. Sri. T. Narayana, Aged 59 years, R/o. Muniyamma Street, Tamil Colony, Market Road, Chikkamagaluru City - 577101.
#3. M/S Shriram Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd., E-8 EPIP Sitapura Industrial Area, Jayapura, Rajasthana 302 022.
#4. Sri. Dinesh U. S., S/o Sri. Sheshegowda, Aged about 30 years, R/o Undadihalli Village, Amble Post, Chikkamagaluru Taluk.
#5. M/s. United India Ins. Co. Ltd., BO_3_ Trichy, 19/1, 1st Floor, Tiruchirappalli City, Tamil Nadu. ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for R1 and R2; Sri. B. Pradeep, Advocate for R3; Sri. A.M. Venkatesh, Advocate for R5; Vide order dated 4/1/23, notice to R4 is dispensed with) MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 242/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM 3 PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. 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 Respondent – Insurance Company along with its 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 respondent-Insurance Company and its authorized officer is filed. The appellants-claimants have agreed to receive and the respondent- Insurance Company has agreed to pay a lump-sum of Rs.11,50,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Fifty Thousand only), in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, in full and final settlement of the claim.
#3. The Respondent - Insurance Company has agreed to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of preparation of 4 award, 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. Out of the enhanced compensation amount to be deposited by the Insurance Company, 50% is directed to be invested in Fixed Deposit in the name of the appellants/claimants in any Nationalized Bank/Scheduled Bank/Post Office for a period of 5 years with liberty appellants/claimants to withdraw the interest periodically. The remaining 50% of enhanced compensation amount is ordered to be released in favour of the appellants – claimants, 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.