High Court Karnataka High Court

Javare Gowda vs S R Murthy on 3 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Javare Gowda vs S R Murthy on 3 June, 2009
Author: Lok Adalath
I
HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, BANGALORE

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 3'" DAY OF JUNE 2009 H 
CONCILIATORS PRESENT: 1' I

HON'BLE MRJUSTICE s.N.sATYANARA\EANA~A.I.::'  I
AND  : H  2 -
SRI.H.C.Sl-IIVARAMU,]_ME:MBEF{._> * , =

Migcelianeous First A993-,_a!   I
Lok Adaiat No. 1_1_';§7[200_8'     '

BETWEEN:

3A\/ARE GOwDA, S/O.LATE NANJE GOWDA, 5 _ I ' ~

AGED ABOLIT44 YEARS, " 'L    '

R/AT NO.6/20, ADARSHANAGAR, I ,

CHAMRAIAPET, 1" MAIN ROAD,  .    v_ 'V 

9*" CROSS, BANGALORE «7..1«B.._   , _.      .. APPELLANT

(By SR1.' A.N~;'GANGADI#IARA:AH, ADVOCATE)

1. SR1. S.R.'i~'.URTHY, S,/AO.SESHA REDDY,
 , NO.37.,«;%;,I BLOCK, NETIIAII ROAD,
 '?HYAGARALEA.NAG,AR, BANGALORE -28.
 (OWNER AND, DRIVER OF CAR BEARING
'--NO.'I<A--'oI--'I4.g115'4) 

 V THE ORIENTAL'V.1NS'DRANCE CO.LTD.,

I NO.3,.._I~"'"{ FLOO_R,;KEENYA BUILDING,
. 15"' CROSS,"--GANDHENAGAR, BANGALORE «» 9
BY ITS MANAGER.

T " "  (,INsL,1RER OF THE CAR) .. RESPONDENTS

(BY SR1. P.B.RAJU, ADV.FOR R-2}

—-ATMFAT FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AwARD
DA’r:.~7_D” 07;11«2o03 PASSED IN Mvc NO.I631/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE 18″‘ ADDL.

IxTV3′{..lDG4E’, MACT-4, BANGALORE, (SCCH~4), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FORCOMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE LOK ADALAT AFTER
BEING REFERRED VIDE ORDER DATED 23:8-2008, THE FOLLOWING ORDER IS

PASSED.

R

The learned counsel for the appellant and the learvned:”‘counsel
for respondent wlnsurance Company along with the;’_:reoreeenrtatlye

are present.

é

2. After due deliberations, the I
pay additional compensation of Wpain and
sufferings and Rs.10,000;’- over and
above what is granted by the seeing Ex.P–17,
both the counsela for document is not
properly interoretedV’Vh§*_”as the claimant is entitled
to re–imbursernent”‘ of Rs.10,000/~ awarded
by the Tribunar agreement, the Insurance
Company offerm; toxnrards other heads, adding intermt

ther%fd;.. gt Rs.AE§5l.’D0O/~, in addition to what has been

_awarded–.

‘_3j:e.__?_énccordilngillyg the rwpondent — Insurance Company offered to

:__er§dAjfn«e appellant has accepted to receive a global

u:co«rinp__ensa1:ion of Rs.80,00G/– (Rupew Eighty Thousand only which

V’r£sj_”inel;’;sive of intermt) in addition to the amount awerdw by the

We

Tribunal, in fail and final settlement of Appellenfis claim. A ioint
memo is flied on behalf of the parties to this effect.

4. The respondent – Insurance Company has

the said amount, within 6 weeks from the date.,iofi..pi’eperietionVief’

Award, failing which the said amount shell:i;4ers59′.intei’§$t p.e.._

from the date of defauit, till the date_of deposit.

5. This miscellaneous first appeellletends lief in terms of
the Joint Memo. The awai*t£i.._..§:;f_Athe;V*_Ti?i’b1i’eeleheil stand modified

accordingly. Draw up the Awervdih.eccorti.ln§ly.V;”

 \'  .,    '   ..... .. V