IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED mxs THE 7"' DAV OF DECEMBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN sHANTANAeouDAR
W.P. NOS.2333O B 3450234504/2010 A
BETWEEN:
1. Kempamma
W/O late Lingaiah
Aged about 48 years
2. Shivakumar
S/o late Lingaiah _
Aged about 30 years_
3. Ma:f1;.,@Cle\/i
D/o1'a{ce"Linga_iah'~.
Ag ed aaau t, 2 7 yea rs A
'_ 4. ~::-inaithra
_ "'3/aerated' n,jngai«a"h"" 'V
' 'Aged 'abAD_u"t .22 years
Ail are-".rjesAiDding at
=-!_\_Eo.1i~, _4.'?»"" Cross
A Padarayanapura
n T Barngalore. ..Petitioner5
A --..V('By.'.uSri Pavana Chandra Shetty, Adv.,)
{U
AND :
1. Netaji Rao
S/o Ganapath Rao
JTS Transport
56, 'C' Block
3"' Main Road
Davanagere.
2. The Manager _
New India Assurance Co.,"Ltd,_,
New Mission Road
Near J.C. Road, Bangalore. ' «,V.VResr)ondents
These writ petitions; arefiiiegd "un'dAe'ri'.,aArticles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, _.~prayjing',. to quash the
impugned orderi'--datedi"'6';»4;2O1Q',passeVd"Iby the Court of
XVIII Addl. ;Ju'd;g_"e, Cou._rt~~'of- 'Sr_na,li__VVVf'Causes, Member,
Bangalore _.vir.ie iA_n_i'1e'xure#E3 anciconsequently allow the
said aPD|icé3tio_nL_g. ' .
These"aiwriti{3'}ii5Qt'iti»o'ris ¢ornaing on for preliminary
hearing', this dagfithei Cou_rt'--.rr'ia-de the following:--
ORDER
i\i:_otice”‘t.o respondents is dispensed with since the
‘order passed wii not affect them.
W
Petitioners have sought for quashing the order
dated 6.4.2010, vide Annexure~B passed-…b_’~aivn
MVC.i\io.6162/2007 by the Tribunal below.
2. The records reveai:=.,:that,lfivan_’:’a’n*1oun.t’_V}pf.’
$250,000/~ was awarded in a.n{ivci.i’s162/20,07; iaeeyaar if.
of the petitioners as comp_ei:njsa_tio_n “for~..::hAe¥death of
late Lingaiah. 50%Voi.V:th.e”‘–avii’noo”rntfyy:a«s_ordered to be
deposited Accordingiy,
compensa;ti”o”n_««..toi- deposited in
the on 3.3.2010 an
aPD|ica’t.ion. by the Petitioners before
the Tribunal Vbeilohvv Apraiysiing for releasing the amount in
. their iayaur as they needed the money for
of the third petitioner. All the
petitiosf:’ers3’are majors. Since petitioners are stated to
have raised the loans for the purpose of marriage
“e>§<'p'enses of petitioner No.3, in my considered opinion,
V'
' eckigtf
interest of justice will be met if the amount in deposit
is released to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the impugned order K
is set aside. The amount in de.pos.i.tL$h”al|’:
in favour of the petitionters. inV”~proport;ion;.:to _i:heiir_:”t.
entitlement.
Writ petitions are