THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER v. GEETA @ KARIYAMMA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173(1)
Judgment
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH & SMT. P.V. KALPANA, MEMBER M.F.A.No.4427/2017(MV) (Lok Adalat No.3491/2024) BETWEEN THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER M/S. SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.302, 3RD FLOOR, S & S CORNER BUILDING, PLOT NO.48, HOSPITAL ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 091. NOW REPRESENT BY ITS MANAGER, M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE, BILAKAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OFF B.G. ROAD, IIM POST, BANGALORE-560 076. (BY SRI B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANT 2 AND 1 . GEETA @ KARIYAMMA W/O. DHANNANJAYA, NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 2 . BHARATHKUMAR S/O. DHANANJAYA, NOW AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, 3 . UPENDRA S/O. DHANANJAYA, NOW AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN – MOTHER – GEETA ALL ARE R/AT DINDIMANE, KANOORU VILLAGE, BHARANGI HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577401 4 . SURESH S/O. MARIGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. MALALAKOPPA, MATTUR POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577201 DRIVER OF TIPPER LORRY BEARING REG NO. KA-51-1918. 3 5 . MANJAPPA S/O. LATE MARIGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. MALALAKOPPA, MATTUR POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK – 577201 OWNER OF TIPPER LORRY BEARING REG NO. KA-51-1918. ….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R B DESHPANDE FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-9, AT SAGAR AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS PASSED. 4 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 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.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
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.