Smt Shanta W/O Ladappa ... vs Kumar S/O Bhagavant Salamantapi ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5184 Kant

                            1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI


              MFA No.31632/2012 (MV)

Between:

1.   Smt. Shanta W/o Ladappa Salamantapi,
     Age: 23 years, Occ: Household work,

2.   Ganesh S/o Ladappa Salamantapi,
     Age: 03 years, Occ: Nil,

3.   Akshata D/o Ladappa Salamantapi,
     Age: 01 years, Occ: Nil,

4.   Yallappa S/o Laxman Salamatapi,
     Age: 50 years, Occ: Coolie,

5.   Saraswati W/o Yallappa Salamantapi,
     Age: 46 years, Occ: Household work,

     Appellants No.2 & 3 are minors duly
     Represented by their guardian Natural mother
     Appellant No.1.

     All are R/o Chinchakhandi, Tq: Mudhol,
     Now residing at S.R.Colony,
     Bijapur-586 101.
                                              ... Appellants
(By Sri.Shivaraj Appaji, Advocate for
Sri. Harshavardhan R.Malipatil, Advocate)
                               2




And:

1.     Kumar S/o Bhagavant Salamantapi,
       Age: 27 years, Occ: Agriculture,
       R/o Chinchakhandi, Tq: Mudhol,
       Dist: Bijapur-586 101.

2.     The Branch Manager,
       Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
       Mudhol.
                                            ... Respondents

(V/o dated 14.12.2020 appeal stands abated so far as R1;
By Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, Advocate for R2)


      This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the M.V. Act praying to allow this appeal and
enhance the compensation to Rs.2,65,400/- along with
interest by modifying the judgment and award of the Motor
Accident Claims tribunal No.XII, Bijapur dated 18.04.2012,
in MVC No.317/2011.

      This appeal coming on for orders, this day, the Court
delivered the following:-


                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section

173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act')

challenging the judgment and award dated 18.04.2012

passed in MVC No.317/2011 by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-XII, Bijapur (for short hereinafter referred to as

'the Tribunal').

2. During the pendency of appeal, respondent

No.1 died. The appellants have not taken steps to bring

the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 on

record. The tribunal has saddled the liability on respondent

No.1. The appeal came to be abated against respondent

No.1 vide order dated 14.12.2020. In view of the same,

the appeal does not survive against respondent No.2.

Accordingly, the appeal is abated.

Sd/-

JUDGE

msr