✦ Karnataka High Court

M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE v. B K JAYARAMAIAH

Case at a glance

Outcome

Withdrawn

appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

Provisions considered

Judgment

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH & SMT. P.V. KALPANA, MEMBER M.F.A.No.2549/2020(MV) (Lok Adalat No.3292/2024) BETWEEN 1 . M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., I/O 10003-E/8, EPIP, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA JAIPUR RAJASTAN - 302 022 REPTD. BY ITS MANAGER NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO. 3/5, 3RD FLOOR, S V ROAD, BILEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OFF BANNERUGHATTA ROAD IIM POST, BANGALORE 576302 (BY SRI B C SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANT 2 AND 1 . B K JAYARAMAIAH S/O KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE R/O BANAVARA VILLAGE, AMRUTHUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 130 2 . KEMPARAJ S/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O BEVINAMARADAPALYA VILLAGE YADIYR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 130 (R1 & R2 ARE SERVED) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.372/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT XV, KUNIGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,00,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS PASSED. 3 CONCILIATION ORDER The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has filed a memo for withdrawal of the appeal as not pressed and also prayed that the amount if any, deposited before this Court may be transferred to the Claims Tribunal. In view of the said memo, the learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- MEMBER SN

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments