Disposed

Smt. Akkubai W/O Mahadev Kokare v. Dinakar S/O Bapu Kate

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2013MFA/24233/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lok Adalat settled a Motor Accident Claim. The court enhanced compensation to Rs 1,35,000, directed 40% to dependents as fixed deposits, and ordered the insurer to deposit the balance within six weeks with 10% interest for delay.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to pay Rs 1,35,000 total (Rs 54,000 as FDR, rest cash). Deposits due in six weeks. Default interest 10% p.a.

Smt. Akkubai W/O Mahadev Kokare Vs Dinakar S/O… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, AT CIRCUIT BENCH DH.ARWAD AWARD

¶2

BIIORF 1111 JOKAI)A1AT

¶3

IN I HF HIGH (‘01 RT OF KARN kIAKA CIRCUI 1’ BEN( H

¶4

AT DHkRWAI)

¶5

CC,NCII4IATORS PRESENT

¶6

HON’BLF 4RS JI STI( F B S lNDRK IA

¶7

ANt)

¶8

SflKSJ’ATIL, MEMBER

¶9

Lok Adalat No.45 Of 2013

¶10

J3iZTWEFN.

¶11

A A. 46 YEARS, 0CC H/W IAL (HIKODI S91 201 DIST; I3CLGAUM. ARKUBA! W/O MAHADFV KOKARE

¶12

R/O KADAPUR, TAL:CHIKODI — 591201 JYoTI B/U MAHADEV KOKARE DIST: BELGAUM AGE: 26 YEARS. OCC:BUSINESS 2.

¶13

.APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI SACHIN S MAGADUM. ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

1 No,K423r4914. KA-23TA915) R/O: SOUNDATH, TAR RAIBAG -591317 SHRI DINAKAR S/C) BAPU KATE REAPING NO.MUR6 196 & TRAILER AGE. 41 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE (OWNER OF TFIE TRACLOR DIST: BELGAUM

¶17

1 590 001 RESPONDENTS SERVE 9) 2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER CO. LTD BELGAF M ADV IOF R PFSFNT* P THE’ NIT F D INDIA ASSURANCE 1)1ST: BKLGAIJM ‘BY SR’ 1AXM4N B M&NN’JDDAP

¶18

MF4 Nft24235^ifl 2009

¶19

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SE( TiON 17 Ml) OF MV^AcTAGAINSt THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03/ 10/2009 PASSED^INMW No 169/2006 tHE FII P OF [HE CIVIL JUDGE (SD) AND MACF. KKODI

¶20

This Miseellane ins First Appal filed agamst the Jndgme^tand a iii passeo b he above Tribunal having been reterred to Lok Adalat )n 09/03/2012 outing in for settlement before Lok Adalat on 04/0 /20 13 in the presence of th Officers of The I. mted India Insurance Ocr, Ltd and the Advocate appearing for the respective parties, for the reasons stated in the conciliation order I it is ordered and decreed that, Respondent No,2 shall pay and the Appellant-claimant shall receive a sum oftL45,OOO/ (Rupees One^hutkh PoiW five thousand only) without interest, in addition to he amount already awarded by the Tribunal in fall and final settlement of his ulaim 2 And it is further ordered and decreed that, the Respondent No,2, shall deposit the said sir nnt hcfre the MACI’, within penod °‘ ix weeks from the date of preparation of the award, failing which the mount shall carry triton st at the rate of ‘l’o per annum from the date of defant, till the date of deposit.

¶21

I And it is fluthe-r ordered and dee reed that, Out of the enhanced -onipensation of Ps 1,35,000/ , 5(7% of the amount he given to wife and the iet in equal proportions to claimants 2 and T Out of the comp iisat.ion amount. 409L of ach of the claimant shall be deposited in fixed deposit accounts in the name of the claimants/ appellants for a period of five years rt. new able P anotln r five years with bherfl reserved h in to withdraw th it trrcst perioeheall and remaining amount shall I me d in s c r r of th lame nts/ ppellsnts nnmcdiate y n e eposit C

¶22

\tF4\o42i3Ot2o09

¶23

¶24

I nd it IS fuitnci $ered and (lecleed that there shall ne no order is^tv Lhe tosts. Jomt Memo is eu Iosd to this Amx1

¶25

Given undeI my hrnd and the si a! of this Ink Adalat on this th⁴ dat of February 2013

¶26

Awani Math’? adv n G\03b3

¶27

SECRETAR?

¶28

¶29

1 1 he Ad 111 egistrar (icner i, Higi Court (ire it Bench Dl arwad

¶30

2 The Divisional Maniger Ibe Umted India Insaranoc Go, Ltd. Bdgaum

¶31

(ika}i’’ HH:H A[’ HCHI CÜURT LEGAL R’Vici: (Ul\iMi’JTELE )HA[WA[)

131!W tlN:

c\c . AppeILiniis

ANJ.):

iL1LV 11 12 /

IL—— ) [io ai I aaj usi I / (ti what has been awaiii ed by tiie ‘1eihin;nil, iii lull and The parties to Ii ic a ppeal have tht on I lie ibliowi ng I ttins: a zL;:: 1’.1s appecti tile iuii ol iii, MVC/ WG OU the hi H >1 _‘ [I e j ud nnen t. and Awar.i IVIA( 1 he ii oa ‘h fe [tigh Lowi: / s.20 of mis been iefHfed to ibis 1.ok Ath ilat by ( lrtn1 o i1t I settled thei i claini behuie. the Lok Ad ala No In addition ‘Flic Appelisi it/s has/I iave agreed. to ieceive and kes pondeiit No. H the Legal Strvices Aul ioi:iti.es Aut .t87. haul srtflrt”xneii I nt Lht clai ne d to (‘ - (R ulpees

¶37

1 at ia]1 caury inteicat H t YH p a The Pes poudent No .zi.cethite i\ tiit tue iward iuttes an iit en titledi Ia flie date of ci eh tu It, till U ic date o arek fiuiii :Liil;ii ig which the slnd a mo iii Inbunal within ied to ci epos:i I the said amount the bc-ba on p91&i(.iou aiw cost of of d ej s if

¶38

P ieii liands beftre [1 IC Lok A(a tot iii Ii cc For United 1nda InuranCe o Ltd iii e; setlitaneti I have set t( of cH ‘Ii Ieiaities to this Dbaiwud.

¶39

r t if itt h it U! )cI MariagS ‘1 H II itil / , Aclvocatc loi 1iIstud/ flO I’ jttI iii 1\ : -•>‘ 1 0 i( It lit / ‘[1 1 11

Smt. Akkubai W/O Mahadev Kokare v. Dinakar S/O Bapu Kate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Akkubai W/O Mahadev Kokare v. Dinakar S/O Bapu Kate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Ramakrishna Vs Sri R Indresh

Smt Neela Vs Sri H C Chaluvaraju

Sri. Ramanappa Vs N K Mathinullah

Laxman S/O : Irappa Pawashe Vs Pundalik S/O : Nago Dhayagonde

Kumaraswamy S/O Pujara Giddappa Vs Gudisalu Ramappa S/O Pakkeerappa

Kashavva W/O.Padadayya Hiremath Occ Flower Vending Vs Bashir Ahamed S/O.Nannesab Shiggaob Major