IN THE HIGH comer 01+” KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS “mo 2nd DAY OF’ I)IiCISl\/IBEZR.
: PRESENT:
TI-IE HON’BI.E MR.JUSIICE N.§<{;PA;ifII;"»: _ '
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUs'r:oz«;..B.oR.El5;NIVAoE._joon%oA
M.F.A.No.
BETWEEN: V é l’ V
The Regional Ma1’1’ageIF”. & 1
The U11i£1ed ‘India In;sua’ar’:«::é”C’C.,
Regio.r1′:-1lC3fiffiee;. W ‘V :3 V
No.25, S’hgifiRara’t1Véira’ya.1jAg1
Building, 5.;__. ” 1’
~l\/l}’G;RVoad, ‘ii:
KBa11galo:o–«: — l
V . …Appellan’:.
[By Sri.M,U.Poo1’1aChVa._Adyocate)
Mary Parpetual,
.« lo’
-. . D V/’o;L«a.€’e-. Arogyaswamy.
T’ about 38 years.
‘ No.G~527. 6″‘ Cross,
2″” Road, HAL Colony.
.. Bangalore M 560 037.
Sri.Ravikumar Reddy.
S/o.K.Ramanr1a Roddy.
Major,
R/at.No.5E7. Anugrahza.
Teachers Colony.
Koramangala.
£3a1’1g-aiore — 560 034.
Respondeiits
{By Sri.K.N.Ha1’ish Babu. Advoeaie for R-1
Notice to R-2 dispensed with V/o. dated 26.1 1.2008]
This MFA is fiied U/ S 173(1) of MV Act
judgment and award dated: 25.03.2006 pasjs’ed.f;in ‘M\/’C
No.2406/1999 on the File of the X111 A(1d1.:_:’.SIi1aVH”–‘CJUSC”‘.’
Judge and 1\/iember. MACT. Bangalore {SCC.}’ff.f:$5}_”.;:[\\5aI’dii:1g_
a compensaiion of Rs.3.42.000/- _wAii1.i1_ 4i11ie1*es’i. at ‘46%p_.::;f-1. ‘ztiii ‘
date of deposit.
This M.F.A. coming on for ‘Qi€oERs.’.i’ii.::s” day’;
Patil J. delivered the I’o1iowi’i1g:””-…V
:14′ U D
Though this made-fsis For orders, with the
consent of learried coiiifisel’ the ~pa’1’ties. the matier is
taker; up lbi'”i5’i.:–<iai d.iVsposa.lVV, _ '
2; Thisappeai "the appeilaiii-Insurance Company
is ,di1'eeied ._agai"nst0" the judgment and award dated
' «25~.o'3.3.2oo'e..«passkgfiiii MVC No.2<fiO6/1999 by the learned
Cause Judge and MACT, Barigalore.
3. flearhed Counsel for {he Claimant–respoiider1t. No.1.
at iheoutsei. submitted that. the ins1:ant’ appea! Filed by the
ap;:$’el1ani does not survive for consideration. To subs1.2miiaE.e
the said submission. he has taken us ihrough the Review
order dated 8.1.2008 passed by the ‘1’i’ib11i1aI in MVC No.
2406/ £999 and subnlitted that as per the Review 0:’cil<;t:'. E118
T1'ibunaI has awarcled 3. sum of Rs.3.60.000/– {Z000 x 12 x
15) towards loss of dependency and a sum of Rs–.’£L500/~
towards conventional heads. since the peiition .£H3J£’i1Iéda:”ta11ider
section 163–A of the M.\/. AC1. ‘I”heref01~e,
the instani. appeai filed by the a:,r.-‘Jfii-3i’};11.}l. ijnay.’;1§apase:E}’=(.)i f
as having become ir1fi’uCtu0L1s.
4. The above subm1ssi.§5″n.V_11121dé by ‘Et:Var1_1eu@,VE:’0u1ise1 far
the c1ain1an1.«1’espo:1do;-mt No.VA1—isl p–}.a(:-ed on i**ccQrd.».’§
5. In flu:hghtafihefyybanasfinlfaadetarthelearned
counsel for the’Claimafi1:!r’::é}3da.dent ihe insianf appeal
_c1.-isiaosed of as having become
i11frL1Ctuu0us. Oardefedv’a.QEf0:’t1ir1gIy.
–. ‘I’I1€*; ‘<s._1;21'iL1.1"01'3./"-affi()unt dvsposited by the appeIEa1'11'–
Ii:-shraarnce Con11)aViiy«she1II be I.ransmiL1.ed to t.hr3jurisdi(:ii()11al
j'rmpmmafimwmm
Sd/-'
IUDGE
* sax:
“” IUDGE