IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT SANGA,EQ:RE
BETWEEN:
1.
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NovEMEE,:j§§,%'2't:~'1Sji _
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUST'§CE'_'_N~."K.PATITQV
THE HONBLE MR.JUET~I-',"')L'--.. H-~,._S.KENEP.ANE€\IA
M.E.A.CROB. I»J.d~.Vi6zS/92fiO»6.
, M_,E-'.A.§sTO.:48s12,/20:05 '(MVJ
~ V
w/0 USMAN
AGED ABOUTI"-~29 '
NAJU' " .
Lx/0 USMANJ V '
-AG ED ABOUT _11_Q YEARS
* A. _ _
D/.O.._AUSIvIA1§3
-..AG'ED»--AE~,OUT 13 YEARS,
AP15ELLAi\ITS 2 8: 3 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT NO.1
RESIDING AT 5 CENTS,
_V NEAR RAGHAVENDRA MUTT, KANCHINADAKA.
' NADASAL VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRLCHARAN KUMAR.K.V. -- ADV. FOR
SRI.K.A.ARIGA --- ADV.)
%_,_M
i.
AND:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
RKALINGA RAO ROAD.
BANGALORE -- 27,
BY DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORI{£E'Y"'« .
pn--d
2. ARAVIND MOTOR (P) L'I'D..
BALMATTA,
MANGALORE.
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR~.._ ' _
3. S.R.ACHUTI-IA .
S/O RAMABELCHADA '
SHEKA MALE HOUSE, H "
ARIYADKAVILLAGE; _ _
KOWDIOHAR
PU'ITUR_..T;~'IL»UI{,I..';'. * * r .
(OWNER OFJTHE LO
4. THE. OR1EN'I:AL INSUI' PASSED IN MVC NO.1 16/2003 ON THE FILE OF
_ 'I7_HE"IDIS'I'RICT JUDGE, AND MEMBER, MACT, UDUPI.
'I PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
. "COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION-.
THIS MFA CROB COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, N.K.PATIL J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:--
JUDGMENT
This cross objection arise out of the impugned
judgment and award dated 22.2.2005 passed…’4in.,’:”Pt§§?;t:C
No.116/2003 on the file of the Distriet»’:”J:udigevv2″anti.’
Member, MACT, Udupi (hereinafter 3
‘Tribunal’ for short]. The cross objeet’ors–c1_airnants have a
filed this cross objection prafirigthat Vtiie”_”eo’n1oensation
awarded by the Tribuna} is fir1adequate.eand has to be
enhanced. ‘V
2; “”” th’e~ie”arned counsel for the
cross objec_to1’sVand.%VthVe-learned counsel for respondent
No.1–~_insurer. ”
The V”Vl’e’a1’ned eounsei for the insurer»
Rao, at the outset, submitted that
the._erossd_o:bjeetion is not maintainabie and is liable to
dismissed. He pointed out that, MFA 4812/2005,
the insurer regarding fastening of liability on it
the Tribunal, had come up consideration on
8.6.2010 and this Court dismissed the said appeal
holding that the judgment and award of the Tribunal is
/if /
4
just and proper and is in accordance with law.
Therefore. the cross objection is not maintainable. To
substantiate his submission he relied upon~”‘–..the
judgments of the Division Bench of this 3
in ILR 1999 KAR 483 and 1986(2) Kar.L.Ji.V4iS2:..
As against this. the «coni1’sel:
cross objectors, submitted that’ the”s.ni3mission..
the learned counsel for the rnayjbe: placed on
record and the cross r;1iay.._i”2e’disposeidliof.
4. In the light Qf’-fifilg ‘lmade by the
learned and in the light of the
well settled llaw the Division Bench of this
Couzt inithe tilvojudgrnents referred to above, the cross
disposed of as not maintainable.
H ” the award, accordingly.
35/”:
Iiidgfi
Sdffi
3ud§’§
1’S