IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR M.F.A.NO.38/2017 (MV) BETWEEN UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., C.N.ROAD, BADRAVATHI, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SHIVAMOGGA DO, R.V.B BUILDING, A.A. CIRCLE, SHIMOGA 577201. REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SMT.M. SUDHAMANI (BY SRI SEETHA RAMA RAO B C, ADV.) AND 1. SMT. SHARIFA BI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O LATE BUDEN SAB, RESIDENT OF TADASA VILLAGE, DONABAGATTA POST, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577301 2. MR.D.A.SIDDIQ UR REHAMAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O MR.MOHAMMED AKBAR, RESIDENT OF DONABAGATTA VILLAGE AND POST, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577301.
...Appellant 3. MR. MOHAMMED AKBAR AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O LATE YAKOOB SAB, RESIDENT OF DONABAGATTA VILLAGE AND POST, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577301.
(BY SRI M V MAHESWARAPPA, ADV. FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 & R3 IS D/W.) Respondents THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.190/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & ADDITIONAL MACT-12, BHADRAVATHI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.12,09,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 7% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT 1. Memo is preferred by the Counsel for the appellant and the memo reads as under:
“Undersigned Advocate for the Appellant submits that the above appeal has been filed by them challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the Respondent No.1. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Vs. Pranay Sethi, the grounds urged in the above appeal have become infructuous. Only point for consideration is the interest awarded at 7%, the Claimants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. Hence, the appellant most respectfully prays that they may be permitted to withdraw the above appeal as not pressed, in the interest of justice.”
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly submits that the grounds urged do not survive for consideration in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS PRANAY SETHI.
3. In that view of the matter, the memo and the submission made are placed on record. Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The amount in deposit be transferred to the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR