High Court Karnataka High Court

Lalithamma Neela Bai vs Sri Lakshmappa on 23 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Lalithamma Neela Bai vs Sri Lakshmappa on 23 October, 2008
Author: H.G.Ramesh
&«_l 

IR THE HIGH 003R'? 0? KARHATAKA
CIRDUIT 353C}! AT DHARWAD

DATED nits -rm: 23!» am or ocronnr;     ~

3EF'0RE   

 

BETWEE8:

LALITHAMMA NEELA BA!  

w/0 (LNARAYANA NAIR

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

MINES LABOURER'  .  _  - 

12/O KAL1.AHALI;I'V?LiAGE. :   A '  

HOSPET 'rAL;1;«:;..3m_;1,p;r2?':):s*;fRxc;q*  , ...u-mx.um~

(BY S2191: 1J.§;k::3:aMi:§A§§rV%.R5ii;§bY,}ADvocA'rE.)

2. SR1 LAKSHMAPPA*. 
s/0 CPIANDRAFPA. = _ 
ownm 0? "1m<;:'r<::R 
Ho'. :s;A--37/'M3979
._jfr:2Q1,z.1*.._::3EARINa--1-:o.KA-37/T-3930
' , mo' CHA3*§_Bi?A(}IRI THANDA
' .  KO'§?PAL "§'AL!..JK, BELLA}?! DIS'I'RIC'I'
2. - 'THE MANAGER
' .._1c1cz.L.0n:aARa GENERAL INSURANCE
comma? LIMITED
{CF31 BANK TOWARDS
% .. _BANi";)RA KURLA comuzx
 V *x.3.ANDARA{EAS'I''}
' ---_a'4-unmaz -- 409 051 "summers

THIS M.F'.A. IS FILED U/S 173(3) 0? THE M.V.AC'I'

I§(}§AINS'I' THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.6.2007
s"PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.28I/2006 ON THE FiLE OF THE ADD}...

CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) -CUM- MAC'?-Vii, HOSPET', PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PE'I'I'I'ION FOR COMPENSA'I"'£ON AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPERSATYON.



 

'm-us A?PEAL COMING 01»: FOR HEARING on I.A.'~.Ti»1fS
BAY, THE coum' I)E:.:vERE:3 THE FOLLOWING:  4' »  ' L.  '* V

JUDGMENT

There is a delay of 40 ” _

I.A.II/2007 is filed for mmomfim osa,edcu’y.

However, I have heard the
appellant on the the V

2. in this appegl, is seeking
for tlie by the

Court _of. mci1.f; _eciva; eesudgc (Sr.I}x1.)-Cum-

M.A.C.’I’.VII,

3. It is _ ” the V”‘£ippe1Iant»claimant had

-: i12ju1’ies “”ii1 a motor accident that

As per the Doctor–P.W.5, the

had sustained fracture of left

_T1ie..’aI’1*ib11nal, taking into consideration the

the injury, has awarded a global

_ of Rs.f25,000/-. 0!: the facts of the case,

eopinion, the compensation esed by the

Efribmxai cannot be said to be inadequate to warrant

W

interfemnoe in appeal. Hence, no purpose wufldf A’

served 1:51 0I’der’!ng’ notice on I.A.II/ X107. 33 »

both LAII/2007 and the appealstmii fi

xsmx