High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Surekha W/O Late Rudrayya @ … vs Smt Bourawwa W/O Late Madiwalayya … on 25 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Surekha W/O Late Rudrayya @ … vs Smt Bourawwa W/O Late Madiwalayya … on 25 March, 2008
Author: Anand Byrareddy
INTI-IEHi HCTTT CWURNATAKAAT

BANGALORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE 

u-an-nun-n nnnuwuwvnmmv -ml- 4: Jana  nan: that In .L}Fl\ 
' ' ' ' . 'p

ReaZfl_~'-..H.g 2-.t.4lt.r.Li:I;.I.-.r-.!"v.*.4§, ' "   " "

Nagar,    "  PETITIONER

' af
 at

Kola: Vilma

 "~'Basav.*ma, Eagawacii Taiui:
A {'jv»Ei,i;=1x§,-1_J;' Digizict

   Manager

' '"i;'3:-len.?.z1 I«.n.;1.r;=.s:-.%

 Con|pan3rL1'm'.tad

Bijapur  RESPO'



Fan'. Babu H Iviomguuna.' ' ' Advocate for Reupmdent No.1
mi  S, E-:inh_;i:_L, Ar_11nr.u_:at.:9 £2: E§  1*-I9..2)
ammo:

T.h.is Writ &t1ti..f!1 is 1.199. '.1..fif..!l.:=.'.' .A.rfi.eles 2'25  *0 3'7 _.-V.l=f-,0 

the Ccmfitution of India praying to set aside   
oram dated 13.7.2005 in civil mac' eumwm00pafiam0m.00 
35.1-::.er.>.»s 9:5.-.: .ts».:~.~.-.-...~;«.-awe pa...-n.e-.6. '.2; +.:~.e0  Mme: 

_ .nrg.-qua.

Judge, Bijapur.

.uu.u- nun rvuuuu "mug wail 3.1.1:. rLw.I,u:um4'i'_i"} uu. sung

in "B" Group this day. tho    Lfol1owi13;_A::_-5

[hi

0 0 )1:  ortne peuuoner that nor husband died in a

 08.11.2002 and flaat her claim for

~ ~   'fr"' ur

CI-
El'
F
E
(1
EF

4'   in MVC.No. 12433002 in whidn the father and the

  ofthu deceased were made pctiuoncm 1 and 2. This

3   In the petitioner wan wiihnut her autnon" '1':y by an



cmiiar Advocate and on ieammg' of such a petition having
been lc-dgad, the petiuiom had mama yet mama:

p-eti........ .... I-.Wf.:.1\Ie.5..,.-

'7 -003 hem the 

noelcing compensalim in respect of t1__1eJ;9r5'  "' 

The claim patition filed by me 

mun';

11........._.x .1... .,
I-ll U

iuuua,

GI man 1.ruu'|'i'a.n'u"'|'-oownfifih . w"'«.u'."T"_  5155

withdrawn on the fiaorlm    poiitiono1i1oa by
the petitioner in   very same
ae::i:i¢nta11d      
and the  the pulitiorner was

@

-r--u-¢v--- --

a......e:1 a"s,I.L+!; -J.-f  by  cf gr-;n_'r;:an afl_.n:I

the reapmdem_ _   were  any sham'

  o ajio1Vif'it'is in this bfl0k£'r0und that me first

 fgvo1n?m' tho  had approached the Tribunal with an

 tn reopen 111.: cm and seeking her share

   oompomatioo by  an appiioafim  Rifle 2.51

%   onhe Motor 'Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinaflaar refimd 1:0 as

'I'i'TTI

'mo REES' $1' 1'-*'-Hmtf,-'} read  seguen 151 -1' 1.31.- $94.0 91'

'Z



I3 .
 . wanna .. «

Civii Kooednre' ,1§0fi.T11oT1i'buna1' atwr" mung'  note ofiixe
cimcrunintarwen and the manner in which the 

EJQVVVTVC

1-\1-nnnnrhv-ail hag pound a gt-|tvlifi_n;l__ Q ;1_I_1g1ij'ri'_'_1*3 ~

application ofthc am: respondent hol;1ing_1ha1_:"n'he' §1§;v afifir1ga%% ' AA 

to Rs.1,80.000!- and that aha fir-~ .

jg. mm; ‘.5 ‘ -‘*.5
came: award and iaauad in
which the arncmnt would he as well, to
secure her §i1ai1m1ge in tha

muqn £I}ad. :.:n ‘.11.! _};G_g2;11nnng urn: 1:n’1′ nu

and therefore, ah: filed yet another

claiin and the same

~ % Gfitfiflflfliififiii hxwifli ham awarded.

% x withdrawn the earlier claim petition. The

at .._s: – 1:: mo mat

men the Tribunal has sought to do was without jumd1′ “cficm.

7,
V

Ruie 251 0” “*0 ifiuresaid Rifles does not pm far my

much meamre. The claim of the fiut respondent

u-up -I-r wvunnunwwvwuv

q=.:.«.a..=t.~i…wn -1′ £1.19. c.m.gm to he aatmninad by re;se=.:.@% % _

a separate pmceuadings. There was gm ”

Tribunal to have apponmuoa the a11¢rgu::i%’ai1af¢?%gar%iiireiti%

I!
1-!

I.-J’
nae
ffi
H:

ans.-runnuldanvuf

‘W. H’-‘nun fin’: norwéhvflinnfi nae’-Inn ‘|1i~-3

idln\l’\.4,’ HR]!-Iii?!’ &_.\vIflI-V’?

unnnrluun
LWVUIIICU

-if
:3

tbs Rules which provides f’m:_a In
mat, in order to . t of cla11n’
umer’ seouon%%i4fi¥ There is no

scope fiar as has been done,

a.;.n.r.1_m: t.-§saifi ,R_;1,.;% mag mm:

junul1′ ‘ co Com. it

potltiomr is living away from

_ ‘V , V’-I * n’ n I
er efit’.-axial’. …’.’.::.’.1e 2.3-… :3 4′”-“4″” ‘*”” M

I

fimt mponaem an the other mum is

olhar caning members ofher fiamily and hence,

” nu-«,3: aniiiiefi to ifiy if! ‘she u(nIIp””‘”‘:’:I”1ifiTi£JIL”‘ any uv”‘t.

.u. i’nmtl1e at-smce of a full-fledged eenquiry an to the actual

mg ‘m_1.aI_:..n_n_1 did not mo to

1.1’. mm.

(3

app-mica’: of éfllfifiériifififni ifl fi”ri.if cf ‘”fJfI’1’ t

no.1 and therefone, would iuhmit thatthe pefitionbe

‘g that 1119 :1 “$4 nng;’

Illlulbnnlu urn!-I oi nwvxn-an ‘ rut :——

pcuum not having been to4″°t!1§’– the

Tribunal in the later claim in

petition aflaar pelifion,
by casually -that the same was
latat peudmiiig of fiaud playcd on the

u If 5 ifl #15:: ‘I_g;t_:IrtI’r’g_’|l Q ‘HI

_&U”_’lfIll-q’f_’:1l”ialoUl ‘ ‘U a-lo’-ynaiaé Ilium Z jxrwi 1

% amrmh the Tribunal and the Tribunal has

nude.” apporfimmmt of the compenuaniorn in

“”57 flfit i””§uuuU1II. IIIIH uwuu ii nu wnuuu LUI-

_f co. The Trilnnmliunaotwitlaoutjut-iadiction insofar

% the share ofcom_1_>enu:tion cfreapm1dentno.l. It

uia noH1em’ “ed mart” ‘sheiniuemother offime deceased an¢ ‘ii

%

4-.4.&.lJ’ A.’ in. an at;-.-.-. gun It ucan.’.A.n- ‘L4. GIILA4.-.3’;-in
VIu-1lJ.UU- {U H WQIHI-‘9 UH \.r1KW”‘.I. IIHII I-IIIUUI IIJU II-IJIU-U DU-lN%I§ll.I

Act, 1956, to me estate of the deceased andtherefiora,

no warm ofjufladioflon imam as the _

minute is concern:-Li. Tm-. cmtention _ a; ‘*

R111 fledged enquhy to address

11 acans.aI-u: -i

mother of 111: deceased, to

compemafian on acgqmt of

5. In the the question of

I’
5
F
i
F
I’
I
:

EL
:-

D

…u|.

la-

with 111: deemed

an fl1_E:$ 1; g cf mm :1: 1.111.:

.. ._’-_ .__’__ ._,.__..

aim; it is not a matter for inmrmnoc by

-a
F
L
i
P

In that, the fim petition in MVC.NO.1243I2002

W311 if it had been filed without her authority, the petition-or

(is

Lf

A1… LALJAA ..

was fiifiwwfifiiwrwitfiimmmuu f

MVC1.ND.5T8!2DD3. The petitioner not having donnfap.

wllgotlmr as 2; 9: an m aclvica, 1.5 3.. _

cannot be appreciated and no xeiief ” ‘V

oftha peiitiomr on account ofme f

.*.-..;’.s..~.:.§11.p

is 1′-‘.9: :’.::-.’:li.~1.-.-d m i.-*-.2.-*:%

in the above circumstances. ii in
the writ patifion. The wzit