HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, BANGALORE
BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALO--I§E;:u
DATED THIS THE 30"' DAY 01-' OCTOBEF-I§00I9O
CONCILIATORS PRESENT: I
IION'BLE 1\m.JUs'rICE
sRI.H.c.sHwARAIv.w,I_'MEMBERT
Miscellaneous First.' Appealfio '.'1»2760a 20052
Lo}; Adala_tfNo--,6Q--2,,/ 2099' . _
BETWEEN: * '.
SANJEVA SUVARNA, _ _
S/O.JAB13A --.
AGED ABOUT :41 YEARS,
MANIPURA, I
MOODUBELLE, UDUPI TALUK '__
AND DISTRICT. I »-- " APPELLANT
V (I337 saI.vzsI'--zwANA1'H PO0JARY.K., ADVOCATE)
.....
I . ‘ E, D. MAN;I~u’NII.*rH, ”
S)’OL”E7_E.NKA’PRA’M;ANA SHERIGAR,
MAJOR,
_ R/O. “LAI<sIIMI" NILAYA,
L_.I.C. COLONY,
' — KADABETTU ROAD,
– I UDUPE-..TALUK,
” _UDU-I>I.DIsTRICT.
2f -.’T.’I+IE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.L’1’D.,
IKVREPRESENTED BY ITS D.M.,
» ~ DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
G.B.PANTI-I MARG,
KRESHNA COMPLEX,
OPP. SHANKAR VITTAL GARAGE,
UDUPI TALUK 82; DISTRICT. .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R52}
MFA FILED U/8.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE ,;iIDlG’NiENT*’A.I~ID
AWARD DATED 2-9-2006 PASSED IN MVC NO.}.019/2005 TIC-IE ‘F’ILE,SOFI
THE PRL. CIVIE… JUDGE (SR.DN.) 85 ADDL. MACT, UDUPIQ’FARTLY”AL’LOWING.
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION EI’sI}iIAINCEME’NT T
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE ‘LOK’;:At5AtATp
AFTER BEING REFERRED VIDE oRDER’D_AT.ED 24’«3~»2:C}O9′,..TH«E”FQ.I.LOWING
ORDER IS PASSED.
CONCIL-m’TI0IH””U1IZDIEjE%,._
The learned counsel for the learned counsel
for the respondent pIIesen.ti
2. By mutual disceussilongl l’Iav’e arrived at a settlement. They
have flied a jointxxnernolin of their settlement. The appellant
has.~a..greed”tO r_eceviVeIa”‘iu1_11pvsum amount of Rs.70,000/– (Rupees
Seventy V’I”Vhous;and’_’orily) in addition to the amount already awarded
Tfilaunalt ‘AT-lfIel..Svecond respondent has agreed to pay the said
. _%=im01int-
Vsecond respondent — Insurance Company has agreed to
depo-Siltsaid amount within six weeks from the date of
preparation of award, failing which the said amount shall carry
interest at 9% 33.21. from the date of default, till the date._of
4. The settlement is in the best interest of the hence,
accepted.
5. Accordingly, the Judgment passed: “jMACT,
Udupi, in MVC No. 1019 / 2005 ystandls—~rVno-diiied in iltevrmsfiof the joint
memo filed by the parties. brags?’ up accordingly. The
entire enhanced cornpensatiqn released in favour
of the appellant.
RR