✦ Karnataka High Court

THE MANAGER v. M. VEDAMURTHY

Case at a glance

Outcome

Withdrawn

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

Provisions considered

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 CONCILIATORS PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH & SMT. P.V. KALPANA, MEMBER M.F.A.No.1840/2024(MV) (Lok Adalat No.2284/2024) BETWEEN THE MANAGER THE SHRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJSTHAN, NOW REP. BY THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GIC LTD NOW WILL BE REPRESENTED BY SHRIRAM GIC LTD., NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE, BELEKALHALLI MAIN ROAD, OPP. BANNERGHATTA ROAD, IIMB POST, BANGALORE-76 (BY SRI PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . M. VEDAMURTHY S/O MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O MALLAGHATTA VILLAGE AND POST, ...APPELLANT 2 SINGATTAGERE HOBLI, KADURU TALUK, CHIKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. 2 . JAGADEESHA S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O HULIGONDI VILLAGE AND POST, SINGATTAGERE HOBLI, KADURU TALUK, CHIKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. 3 . S.S. SANTHOSH S/O SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT SOWTHANAHALLI VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.07.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.87/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,70,418/- WITH INTEREST AT 7 PERCENT INTEREST 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. 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 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.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The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn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