High Court Karnataka High Court

Sardar S/O Imam Sab vs Sikandar Ahmed Mullani on 6 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sardar S/O Imam Sab vs Sikandar Ahmed Mullani on 6 March, 2009
Author: Lok Adalath
'» *2"gTfi£'MA&AsgR

 '~u.KaLLA9URA

%"{By 3:1: A M VENKATESH FOR R2 )

-1-

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMITTEE, BAnsALdg£g x
BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT " " "

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA A? BANQALGRE V A
DATED THIS THE O6"'EfiX OF fiAR:H»2eo9j=_':j
coNcIL1Ar0Rs PRESENT: ' '° ""

THE HON'BLB MR. Jusizdt»s.N.sAf$2§ARAyAfiA
sMT;a{§,R$Nugg;,flgfiB3R
MISCELLANEOUS Eras: fi§PERL NgJ?796f2OO4
-Lox AEALRT Nc,:245/2058

BETWEEN

1 SARDAR¥SfiO IMAM sag " }
34 YEARS "i" ','- ""W"
R/O AGAsARA_BEEa1*.%=
DEVANAHALLI yosT{)_ ,' .
BANGALORE RURAL DIST '~
°,'., . } V,: ... APEELLANT
{By Sri MAHESH R uppzn, ADV 3

1 'sxfiagbaa AHMED HULLANI
SfQ"%HMEQUMULLANI
.  ;~4p,J;;xR' H ' 
_R/O AT PQSTrTHOP
._' HRTHAKANAGALLI TALUK
'"»KCLLApUR«aIsT

x_'~§NI$ED Imnxa INSURAfiCE CO LTD
*.:AKxA BUILDING, c~wARB
"aLAKSHMEPURA

.. RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA Is FILEb2″U/s 1?3<1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JEDGMENE ENE AWARD DATED:6.7.04
PASSED IN MVC NG.809/G2 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE {SR.DN) AND can & IIAEEEACE,
DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLGWENG THE CLAIM PEEIEION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENEANcEMENI,«oE
COMPENSATION. — "*E*

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR CQEEILIEEIEEN,
BEFORE LOK ADALAT AFTER BEING REFERRED VIDE ORDER '.

DATED 27.8.2008, THE EQLLOEINGMQRDEE;:s«§AsSEpg _
coNcIEIATIoN{oEDEE.'; "< "*

The learnefi Counsel IfoE.x(afip§ilEnt"fi"EE§_

respondéfitrinsfiféndéa 'Cofi§éhf along with the

officer Gf InSufanCe C9Epany are present.

,f'2.a Aftér_ flue: éeliberations, the matter is

settEe€. _The r@spondent~insurance company has

A"agreédflt§ Efifiance the award from Rs.39,050/– to

RE:&,éQ;9fi9/- in fuil and final settlement of the

"claim._ However, in respect of the enhanced

flcam§énsation the interest payable is 6% p.a. fram

V 'E ' the fiate of petition till. payment. The learned

Counsel for appellant accepts the offer 9f the

E 3
ya

-3-

insurance company. A joint memo is filed on

behalf of the parties to this effect.

3. The respondentmlnsurance ¢ompeh§”pha$:

agreed to deposit the said amount, within €fweeke’.’

from the date of preparationfl of’ awar§;: felling

which the said amount ehall oarty ihteteet at 9%”

p.a. from the date of default, till the date of
deposit. L

:”§.””Thls fhisoellaneofief first appeal stands
disposed, of Vihaftefmg_.of the joint memo. The
award lei “the hffihunal shall stand modified

ad¢ar§in91y;*– ….. ..

1″$}« Eh vthis matter the learned Counsel for

the ,instuenoe company requested that the two

f”xphotogta9hs at Ex.P9 is required for them to seek

Vh,’anfiroval from the sanctioning authority, hence be

fgiven to them. Accordingly, the Counsel fer

appellant is directed to file an application for
return of the document/twe photographs at Ex.P9.

“‘1 tn

on such application being filed, the afiwaj g&

photagraphs whach are at Ex.P9 are directéa ta EaT

Lwmhpxi’

return to the appellant4 orf’£héwfiCaunséla_fo£’}K

insurance company.

Draw up the award accérdihglya”.

Nd/-