SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
THE BRANCH MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
SRI NARAYANACHARI – Respondent
MFA/3666/2016



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

MFA No.3666 OF 2016(MV)

C/W

MFA No.3667 OF 2016(MV)

IN MFA 3666/2016

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER

CHOLAMANDALAM, GIC LTD

BRANCH OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR

DARE HOUSE, 2 NSC BOSE ROAD

CHENNAI – 01.

NOW REP. BY ITS

LEGAL MANAGER

SR MANAGER CLAIMS

CHOLAMANDALAM M S GIC LTD

NO 1/2, GOLDEN HEIGHTS

6TH FLOOR, 59TH C CROSS

4TH M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR

BANGALORE – 10.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADV.)

AND

1.

SRI NARAYANACHARI

2

S/O LATE. KEMPE EARACHARI

NOW AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

R/AT 142, 1ST MAIN ROAD

4TH CROSS,

B CHANNASANDRA

BANASWADI POST

BANGALORE – 43.

2.

SRI KEMPANNA

S/O MUNIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

NO 142, T AGRAHARA

THIMMASANDRA BANGALORE – 62.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.C.RAJANNA, ADV. FOR R1 )

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF

MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD

DATED:18.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1446/2014

ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES

JUDGE,

&

XXVII

ACMM,

MACT,

BANGALORE,

AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.9,96,200/- WITH

INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION

TILL REALIZATION.

IN MFA 3667/2016

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER

CHOLAMANDALAM, GIC LTD

BRANCH OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR

DARE HOUSE, 2 NSC BOSE ROAD

CHENNAI – 01.

NOW REP. BY ITS

3

LEGAL MANAGER

SR MANAGER CLAIMS

CHOLAMANDALAM M S GIC LTD

NO 1/2, GOLDEN HEIGHTS

6TH FLOOR, 59TH C CROSS

4TH M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR

BANGALORE – 10.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADV.)

AND

1.

SRI NARAYANACHARI

S/O LATE. KEMPE EARACHARI

NOW AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

R/AT 142, 1ST MAIN ROAD

4TH CROSS,

B CHANNASANDRA

BANASWADI POST

BANGALORE – 43.

2.

SRI KEMPANNA

S/O MUNIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

NO 142, T AGRAHARA

THIMMASANDRA BANGALORE – 62.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.C.RAJANNA, ADV. FOR R1:

NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH

V/O DATED:23.02.2018 )

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF

MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD

4

DATED:18.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1447/2014

ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES

JUDGE,

&

XXVII

ACMM,

MACT,

BANGALORE,

AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,95,000/- WITH

INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION

TILL REALIZATION.

THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

These appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’,

for short) have been filed by the Insurance Company

being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18-02-2016

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since,

both the appeals arise out of the same accident, they

were heard together and are being decided by this

common judgment.

2.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals

arise out of MVC.Nos.1446/2014 and 1447/2014,

briefly stated are that on 23-04-2013 at about 3.50

p.m., the deceased Gopamma and N.Nagaraju were

5

proceeding in a Passion Plus motor cycle bearing

registration

No.KA-04-EW-6964

along

with

two

children from Banasawadi to Bytha village. When they

reached near Tank bund, Avalahalli, Bangalore-

Doddaballapur Road, at that time, a TATA ACE vehicle

bearing registration No.KA-50-4631 which was being

driven by its driver, at high speed, in a rash and

negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a

result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased

sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the

injuries.

3.

The claimants filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act, seeking compensation for the death of

the deceased Gopamma and N.Nagaraju along with

interest.

6

4.

On service of summons, though respondent

No.2 appeared through its counsel but not filed

written statement.

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the

Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was

placed ex-parte.

5.

On the basis o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top