INTEHEHKH{COURTCH?KARNABMQXHTBANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2157' DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N K PA"iiL%0;';-A: .
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICEK G_()'~J;1NDA'
MISCELLANEOUS E1RSTAp9EAL'919.4040/"2_0A05(Mv) ~ "
BETWEEN:
UPENDRAK
S/O BABU AC1-_IARYAA....._ =, 'a '~
AGED ABOLJT-.29_YE;ARS,_:'V..: _
OCC: QUALI'1*--Y£§JOIAJ'TROL'IN
R/AT" aMAE'~JD'IRA ROAD.
KAMAKSI*--{IPAL3'..A;~0 « _ ' _ A .
BANGALORE .5 560079;--- ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT AND
SE:CA:B.S.JANARpHALJA SWAMY, A:)Vs.).
ENSURANCE COMPANY.
REGIONAL OFFICE.
M.G,R"'QAD.
BANGALORE.
.iVIR.UDAYA KUMAR,
.. 0349, SRINIVASA NAGAR,
A A ..fBANGALORE -- 560050. ...RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SMT HARINI SHIVANANDA, ADV. FOR R1.
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09.02.2005 PASSED
IN MVC NO.550/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE
SMALL CAUSES J UDGE. MACT. BANGALORE; APARTEY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PE'I'I'l"ION FOR CO1\(§PEN§3A'F!'Ql€.
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF' COMPENSA'1*1QN.' «. ' _ 'V
THIS APPEAL COMING ON "
N.K.PATIL, J.. DELIVERED THE FC)LLQWiNG_: = ' A
JUDGMENT
This appeal is,’ direeated:”v–againsf it-he Vpiinpugned
judgment and award’ passed in
oi “_the’fl4MACT, Bangalore. The
=0f awarded by the Tribunal
being, in.adequ~a.te and it requires enhancement, the
A Aelvairriariit has prevéenfed this appeal.
” 1 We”have heard the learned counsel appearing
“WWW
Afopftihe respondent/fl purer.
3. We have gone through the grounds urged by
the claimant in the instant case and also gone through
the original records available on file.
4. During the course of subniiss-lon;””
counsel appearing for respon’C!ent_’_’lr;to.l’;_ tstmf
Shivanand submitted that,_,Tth_is app_ea1V not.’
survive for consideration .is-.1ia.b1e to -be dismissed.
To substantiate the said”sub§fnissVi’onA,xshe has taken us
through original subrnitted that 16*
respt;n’dlent..tifhatig “fi1e’d;:” MFA””‘4:1 :4/2005 against the
appellvant/at-iother being aggrieved by the
irnpt.1.gned”§u_dgrn’ent. award passed by the tribunal.
appeaffiled by the insurer is allowed and
iii-~.djeposit has been refunded to the first
re_Spondeni’t/T insurer. Therefore, she submits that the
nappea}. on hand may be dismissed as not maintainable.
4. Submission is placed on record.
£2»
5. The present appeal filed is dismissed on devoid
of merits in the light of the judgment and awar_dv~.p’a_ssed
by this Court in Oriental Insurance
Upendra K (MFA 4114/2005 disposed of§:15:2:£?.2Q0:?)””
and for the reasons stated therein. ‘
Ordered accordingly. V» ”
5d!-
.... Judge hm