Disposed

Vitthal Rao v. Khodlu @ Santosh Yadav and Others

Chhattisgarh HC3 Feb 2007MA/66/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment records the order passed by the Lok Adalat of Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur Bench, settling the dispute between Miller and insurance respondents via a compromise award, directing Respondent No. 3 to pay Rs. 35,000 and counsel fees to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 3 to pay Rs. 35,000 to appellant and Rs. 350 to counsel; appeal against R. 1 & 2 dismissed; coconut award given to parties free of cost; junior member V.K. Shrivastava and Sd/- as judge

Vitthal Rao Vs Khodlu @ Santosh Yadav and Others — Arbitration | Chhattisgarh HC (2007)

¶1

is4pi£: y2 £S.i£iy2 ?'a-;'L-'ih l-~^
&a :Bi do/'nn^'ni •.LLOSD.O*;! •-i Q!P>]
i-'I?'jih y> ?.+ 'i-y3[D{c Wio'ss bi'?l.303bi
'Pb'~5i^
' 'yr'.n^ /Q i_ nf^ ^-j^ ii-p">r3s> !7:l-i<sr0
Oi£OS ^N,i?tfijt" ln?<;01311-E IDI'e' lko'3R'& £2Jtf
./£fii:e {gl2&'J3^2£;o^Ois£iii* iT.i^irpirp--'?
J^taaUdikS ifitl2£2U£e^-1- .1£U3 J^ifiUetS
Lrr;'>-,!EA> L3!hi-^":

¶2

4r ^A
^
..-€^<'
^•€^
^>^s
y^./
''>

¶3

^•c^- JH£ 11" iiaa^i uuGi2±i£^ ^iiaiEtea i=ai3i:s
i. 1=1CUU<^ i-t- i..-!- ^i^^t^ ^^- --•''fe i=ii=-'i.^l^ /
"'l^,^300g'os.'63 ssies: i^iPts le hi^iii-'tf'i Y;r-<^
/^, 1 , '!CI'S t-.. 1^> —f*. />. /^ ,'.
^ i. Jk.j-1- 4$12 y y ti i. yi'y$iiy wif^^'y1
t>r^0 ct? ,-r t? ?? i.^r?i^l
pbc i.
rp-D'binp. ts.i.Qtf; p!!i.i>'i.bK? uQ oihi.E-;
•S 006'- i. •£I- ci3il£"&l.
\nytn} -ft?;-^'^t i-^T'^^^ IO^SF-)?^u;s^ J^WNUSMi-y.i^i^
.--, gooe'o i. 'z L azus^ i-'?u h

¶4

iOlff322£U£!£;/lnlP|SiD?LUF--------( nipOp! )'?h,7-IL31si . ,-i-, t_7^-^t rs;- ,, e^ 1 -S^-^^it-"ii^i-l ILC*-^-il^f—l^-it—rk-'iF^ll".'?-; l'—.^i-

<br>

S-Plt^tS

c-n'&nii-c-

•i?ihiDF"ia=1
^e?;Ei.R
'^-i—.A ' fl-T.fT'-lI I!-*-'i-^'L~;}S-,1 S •7-!^>]r?!fTtC U; ffliOLCI^

¶9

./
,3
^

¶10

r,liiln-aii'i.'lntf A-»arii-^'-BS«l,."-itAn.ai fiTlii. .?

ItS^

Vitha! Rao

Respondents;

tosh Yadav Others.

of20021

Shri Ashok Dixit, counsel for the appeilant.

¶17

None for respondents No. 1 & 2.

¶18

ihri J.M. Gairola, Divisional Manager, the OrienSal insurance Company Limited with Shri Vinay.Harit, Sr. Advocate & Shri Roshan

¶19

Dubev. counsei for resoondent No.3.

¶20

19181

¶21

in terms of comproiTiise, award is passed as beiov./:-

¶22

1. In addition to compensation already awarded by the Tribunai, respondent No.3 shail pay Rs.35,000/(Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Oniy) to the appelfant.

¶23

1. For disbursement and deposit in FDR, the T'ribunal may

¶24

aDDroDriate orders.

¶25

1. The amount, if any, kept sn deposit with Bank shalt be

¶26

underthe orders'of Tribunai in accordsnce wlth law.

¶27

1. Appeiiant shail be sntitled to receive interest on ffie amount so

¶28

deposited, if any.

¶29

1. in view of' the above, appeai against respondents No.1 & 2

¶30

o) Out of the above amount, Rs.350/Only) shaii be paid to counsel for the appei^ant directly by resoondent No.3 towards counsei fee.

¶31

1. If the amount awarded is not deposited within -a period of one month, the insurance Company shail be iia&le to pay interest at the

¶32

8') Coov.of the award shall be given to the oartiss free of cosi

Sd/-

V.K.Shrivastava

Sd/-

Member - Lok Adalat

Judge-LokAdalat High Court of Chhattisgarh High Court ofChhattisgarh Bilaspur

¶38

Bilaspur

¶39

"!i"-"T

Vitthal Rao v. Khodlu @ Santosh Yadav and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Rao v. Khodlu @ Santosh Yadav and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gyan Prasad Vs the Oriental Insurance Co.and Ors.

Subedar Patel and Others Vs Suresh Kumar Sen and Others

Sudha Devi Dwivedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjiv Kumar Vs Anand Pandey and Others

Aajuram Vs Raju Bajaj and Others

Shridhar Lal Vs Severam Sahu and Ors.