SMT. MANJULA v. THE BRANCH MANAGER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
This Miscellaneous First Appeal stands disposed of in terms
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 SN
Judgment
SMT. P.V. KALPANA, MEMBER M.F.A.NO.2611/2023 (MV) (LOK ADALAT NO.3395/2024) BETWEEN 1 . SMT. MANJULA W/O LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2 . DIVYARANI. C, D/O LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 3 . BHAVYARANI. C., D/O LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 4 . RUKKAMMA, W/O LATE BYARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT. KORMANGALA, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, LAKKENAHALLI POST, RAMANAGARA DIST-562127. (BY SRI MAHADEVA SWAMY P, ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANTS 2 AND 1 . THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., NO. 5/111 AND 6/112, 1ST FLOOR, UNNATIARACADE, 1ST BLOCK, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, 1ST MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-10. 2 . MR. CHANNAGANGAIAH, S/O HANUMANTHAIAH, VIJAYAVITAL NGR, BISHWESHWARA PURA, NELMANGALA TALUK, BENGLURU-562123. (BY SRI ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1) ….. RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.17.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.5126/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IX C/C. XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE SMALL CAUSES AND ADDITIONAL MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION 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 Appellants – Claimants, is present. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent – Insurance Company along with its representative are present.
After prolonged negotiations, the matter is settled. A joint memo signed by learned advocate appearing 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.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand only), in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, in full and final settlement of the claim.
The Respondent - Insurance Company has agreed to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of preparation of 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 deposited by the Insurance company in respect of appellant Nos.1 to 3 are concerned, 50% of their share as apportioned by the Tribunal to be deposited by the Insurance Company in Fixed Deposit in the name of the said appellants/claimants in any Nationalized Bank/Scheduled Bank/Post Office for a period of 3 years with liberty to the said appellants/claimants to withdraw the interest quarterly. The remaining 50% of their share is ordered to be released in their favour, on proper identification. In respect of appellant No.4 is concerned, her entire share as apportioned by the Trial Court is ordered to be released in her favour, on proper identification since she is aged about 70 years.
Operative part
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 SN
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
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.