AWARD DATED 10.05.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO. 182/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE (FAST TRACK) AND MACT AT HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA CROB NO.100019 OF 2014 (MV) IN MFA NO.23215 OF 2012 BETWEEN
1. SMT.RATNAVVA W/O HOLEBASAPPA ANGADI AGE:64 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/O:ALADAKATTI, TQ: DIST: HAVERI.
2. GUNDAPPA S/O HOLEBASAPPA ANGADI AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE, R/O: ALADAKATTI, TQ: DIST: HAVERI.
3. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O HOLEBASAPPA ANGADI AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COOLI, R/O: ALADAKATTI, TQ:DIST:HAVERI.
4. SHANMUKAPPA S/O HOLEBASAPPA ANGADI AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE, R/O:ALADAKATTI, TQ:DIST: HAVERI. ... CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI.PRASHANTH V MOGALI ADV. FOR CROSS OBJECTOR.) 3AND
1. THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURACE COMPANY LTD NEW COTTON MARKET HUBLI REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD. LEGAL DEPARTMENT SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING II FLOOR CLUB HOUSE ROAD ANNASALAI CHENNAI.
2. MANJUNATH VEERANNA MALLAJJI AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: C/O: SUBHASH H. MAILAR HAVANUR TQ: DIST: HAVERI. ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.23215/2012 FILED, UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF C.P.C.AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.05.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO. 181/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE (FAST TRACK) AND MACT AT HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE CROBS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The Cross objection Nos.100019 and 100020 of 2014 are filed by the claimants in MVC.Nos.181 and 182 of 2011 on the file of District Judge (Fast Track) & MACT, at Haveri.
2. Admittedly both claim petitions were filed by the claimants claiming compensation in respect of road traffic accident, which has taken place on 11.3.2001. In the said claim petition the defence taken by the 4respondent-insurer is that the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling was not having valid permit and the said auto rickshaw was also overloaded and carrying persons which is against the permitted seating capacity. In these cross objections, notice were served on the respondents and in spite of that, they have not taken any steps to contest the same.
3. These cross objections are filed with delay of
393 days. Hence, applications in I.A.No.1/2014 are filed in both cross objections, seeking condonation of the same and permit them to prosecute these cross objections before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for Cross Objectors on I.A.No.1/2014, perused both the affidavits. On going through the same, it is seen that the reasons stated in the affidavits is that the said delay is not intentional and further stated that to meet the expenses of the claim petition, they borrowed hand loan from the well-wishers. It is further stated that they had approached their advocate, 5who in turn, advised that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is meager and then immediately they filed these cross objections. In that process, there was some delay in filing the above cross objections.
5. Hence they have come up in these cross objections in the appeals filed by the respondent insurance company. In the affidavit no acceptable reasons are assigned by cross objectors for the delay of 393 days caused in filing the cross objections. Hence, question of condoning the delay of 393 days does not arise. Even otherwise, on merits, if the entire material available on record is looked into, the claimants are awarded with just and reasonable compensation, which does not require reconsideration and no grounds made out to consider the cross objections for enhancement of compensation in both the appeals. Accordingly, both the cross objection are dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE VB/RHR/-
Comments