✦ Karnataka High Court

THE MANAGER v. JAGADISHA

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Withdrawn

appeal is dismissed as withdrawn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.2718/2021(MV) (Lok Adalat No.3291/2024) BETWEEN THE MANAGER SHRI RAM GIC LTD., E-8, RIICO IND AREA SITAPURA JAIPUR, RAJASHTAN NOW REP BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., 302, 3RD FLOOR, S AND S CORNER BUILDING OPP. BOWRING AND LADY CURZON HOSPITAL BANGALORE-01 (BY SRI PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . JAGADISHA S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 2 . CHANDRAHASA S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS ...APPELLANT 2 3 . GANGADHARA S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL ARE R/O KEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. 4 . R. PARI S/O S M RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O NO.1584B, SHOP NO.1 OPP: RELIABLE SERVICE STATION MYSORE ROAD CHANNAPATNA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHEKAR L.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.07.2020, PASSED IN MVC NO.803/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT- XV, KUNIGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,30,800/- TOGETHER INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION 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 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.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The Court recorded the following disposition: appeal is dismissed as withdrawn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 treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

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