Gangamma v. Mohammed Jiyaulla N
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
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, MEMBER & M.F.A.No. 2786/2024 (MV) (Lok Adalat No. 2029/2024) BETWEEN: 1 . Gangamma, W/o Late Krishnaiah, Now aged about 54 years,
#2. Gangadhraiah G.K., S/o Late Krishnaiah, Now aged about 34 Years,
#3. Mangalamma, W/o Murulidhara, D/o Late Krishnaiah, Now aged about 36 Years, R/a Kadayyanakoppalu Village, Gandasi Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan Taluk.
#4. Bhagyamma, W/o Ranganath, D/o Late Krishnaiah, Now aged about 38 years R/a Davauolatte Village, 2 Srirampura Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District.
#5. Premaleela, W/o Ramalingaiah, D/o Late Krishnaiah, Now aged about 40 years, R/a Hosahalli Palya, Huliyar Hobli, C. N. Halli Taluk, Tumakuru District. The appellant No.1 and 2 are R/a Gowrasagara Village, Kandikere Hobli, C. Halli Taluk, Tumakuru District. Now all appellants are R/a Bheemasandra, Tumakuru. (By Sri. Raghu R., Advocate) AND 1 . Mohammed Jiyaulla N., S/o Noorulla Sharif, Now aged about 34 years, R/at 3rd Cross, Near Kukdeshwari School, Neharu Nagar, Holalkere Road, Chitradurga - 577501. And also R/a BVKS Layout, In front of Kote Police Station, Chitradurga Town - 577501. ...APPELLANTS
#2. The Manager, HDFC ERGO Gen. Ins. Co., Ltd., No. 25/1, 2nd Floor, Building No.2, Shankaranarayana Building, M.G. Road, Bengaluru - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri. B. Pradeep, Advocate for R-2) 3 MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.02.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO. 84/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT AT TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION ENHANCEMENT OF SEEKING COMPENSATION. AND 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.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. 4
#3. 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. The entire enhanced compensation amount shall be released to the appellants/claimants in the same apportionment as per the Judgment and Award passed by the Claims Tribunal.
#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 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.