High Court Karnataka High Court

Naveen Shetty S/O Karunakara … vs Hanumegowda S/O Venkatagowda on 29 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Naveen Shetty S/O Karunakara … vs Hanumegowda S/O Venkatagowda on 29 January, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna


“3 MOTOR BRANCH BANCflLORE

swam SPO RAMEGOWDA

IN THE HIGH cotim are KARNATAKA AT A’
DATED THIS THE 29th navme Jgnzgfiiéi k A’
BEFORE X AA V’
THE f~iON’BLF: MR’. .ri:§;-‘:iIxcF:xA- B()VVIA£5}&~.1A’;%g;;,’.._VV
MISCF:I.LANFiOIIS FIRST rm. (MV)

BETWEEN :

NAVEEN SHETTY S/O KAR.U.NAKA’RA ” ‘
Aagangourasffiizs
3c1r:eoss,2~:E1–1:f:’U
MANDYA ” ._ A’

(By Sri: L RAV.JA.,{A1;%}{,_)V”

.. . APPELLANT

AND :

1 HANUMEGOWQA.SfQ\.’VENKATAGOWDA
MAJOR” LfsRn;ER 011′ TEMPC TRAX BEARING
4 REGN’ NOKA 1/G913, OFFICE 01? THE
“<.DELPU'.;'Y REGIS-'-"FEAR OF COOPERA'I'IVE SOCIETIS
Si3BHAS}iNAGAR, 2 CROSS
" ~ MANDEKA

REGISTRAR OF COOERPATTVE
A SO(_}1E'Fi_ES. 2 (moss, SUBHASH mom?
M.t;N1:2.*.r–A

' * ._POLlCY NO 92977. CERTEFICATE NO
»_ 2000-01/oc«;o772 VALID moss
' "£299-2000 TO 23-9-2001

MAJOR DRIVER' OF AUTORICKSHAW

J;

or

BEARING NO REGN N0 KA 9 6?59
GAYITHRI BEEDI. MANDYA

5 S KAMALACHAND KOVTI-{ARI V _ _* V ”
S/O SHANTHILAL KUFHARI MAJOR’ ‘ ._ ~:’ — . ‘
I CROSS, CENTRAL swans’? ..
BEHIND NEW MARKET, MANDYA

6 THE NEW INDIA Assumficg co LTD V % 1
2 cRoss,AsHoKANAGAR’-~«L.VV ” M =
MANDYA RESPQP~{EiEN’I’S

{By Sriz K SURYANARAYfi§A” RAQ ‘R6

Sn’: SANGAMESH G PA;’r1:_.; Gi7′.f’C¥R 132-$.39′

THIS APPE-_AL.__IS FILE?) ‘L?/S “1.?’a3_{I}’OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMEl\l3’AW’A.R£3 ‘DATED 3U'[9.fsO6 PASSED IN MVC
NO.’729/{)5 ON ‘–TH2-7′; .l_??_fLE’C_!F’ PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACT COURT-EILV ,”?§fiN”t’}Yt\. V_Pi$RTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETE’-[I0-N FOR CC!MPENS?\’I’i0N AND SEEKING

AE:NHANq5MEzsrrj;oF’C:QMPE,NsAT:ci:~z’;– ‘

made the’f:gIIowing._: _ ..

Tfris “f§fr.h£*.aIing, this day, the (‘mart

. _ ‘i.’hE§’}:’«7!:;i’i7;§ant]ze&’:’;)c:I1ant is before this (‘.m1z1: seeking

finhancbménvi bf.-v’tha compensatitm as against the sum

F/{amt Acr:ide’nt’ Claims ‘I’riImnai, Maudya (for

gshgn thiev.’}}iA(?T’) in we No.’?92

Heamti the lemma? 00flIl$iCI for the pm’ti¢.=-.5 and

T the appeal papers.

1;