Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs G. Mallesh on 13 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45502
MFA No. 7697 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7697 OF 2016(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO.94,
I FLOOR, B M COMPLEX,
LAXMI BAZAAR, CHITRADURGA TOWN.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICER,
SUBHARAM COMPLEX, 144, M G ROAD,
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B S
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...APPELLANT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
G. MALLESH DEAD BY LRS
i. GURUVABHOVI,
S/O ERABHOVI,
NOW AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
ii. SMT. ERAMMA,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45502
MFA No. 7697 of 2016
W/O GURUVABHOVI,
NOW AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
iii. G.HANUMANTHAPPA,
S/O GURUVABHOVI,
NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
iv. BHEEMAIAH,
S/O GURUVABHOVI,
NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
v. SMT.RADHAMMA
W/O G.MALLESH,
AGE: MAJOR.
ALL R/AT D-MALLAPAURA VILLAGE,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577527.
2. B.Y.RANGANATH,
S/O ANJARAPPA @ YENJARAPPA,
OWNER OF TATA ACE,
AGE MAJOR, R/O SHIVANI VILLAGE,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577-228.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.R. RANGA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (i, ii and v)
R1(iii) and R1(iv) SERVED V/O DATED 13.12.2023, SERVICE OF
NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:45502
MFA No. 7697 of 2016
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED5.7.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.220/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION
OF RS.28,377/- A/W 7.5% INTEREST P.A FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for
the appellant.
2. Sri N.R.Range Gowda, learned counsel is on
record for respondent No. R1 (i, ii and v). Notice is served
upon respondent Nos. R1 (iii) and R1 (iv). However, there
is no representation.
3. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the merits
of the appeal, issuance of notice to respondent No.2 is felt
not necessary, hence, dispensed with.
NC: 2023:KHC:45502
4. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Triubnal, Hiriyuru,
in MVC No. 220/2012 dated 5.07.2016. The appeal is filed
by the Insurance Company.
5. Respondent Nos.R1(i to v), filed an application
claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in total.
6. The Tribunal by the impugned order awarded
compensation of Rs.28,377/- in favour of respondent Nos.
R1 (v) by name Smt. Radhamma.
7. On this day learned counsel for the appellant
states that as pay and recovery was ordered, the
Insurance Company would pay the amount which it was
ordered to pay and thereafter, it would take steps for
recovery of the same from the Insurer.
8. In the light of the submission thus made, nothing
survives for adjudication in this appeal. Therefore the
appeal stands dismissed without costs.
NC: 2023:KHC:45502
9. The amount if any, deposited before this Court be
transmitted to the concerned Tribunal immediately.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PTM
