High Court Karnataka High Court

The Deputy General Manager Ksrtc vs Dharigonda Piragouda Patil on 20 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Deputy General Manager Ksrtc vs Dharigonda Piragouda Patil on 20 March, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
 Amity BPs.'I'ED:3...9.03

2-IQAIJD. 15432064

$2»: THE: mm cazmsr or mmqnrmm AT amcsawas
DRTEB mm mm 20" my 35* MERGE! 29:35 
32503.3

mm KC}!-FBLE 1*IR.JUS'I'I{":E Rm nmmq.   

MFA N€3.1.§»'1/2064 
mzzsrsm : V  

1 THE mmyvwf GENEERL M%flAGERxE5R$Q*_ -.«
EAHGfiLDRE; 339 BY nIvx$tomAL,can:acLLER
xsawc, EELGAUM * z-*; _ar.*--
QWNER can INSURER 53 $533: 3 , '*

333 Ha HA G1 £_514a ; '*_ _*Jg_' w

REP BY NWKET£;_flENIRA$ flryxgflsg EEBLI

BY $3133 LAfi"UEEIGER «y,'._E'Q _'
_<.= " '-g'$;.% BPPELLAHT

{By Eri: F E DA3fiEI;,#HV;i'H .'

ANB ;  %¥ Since deceased by his LR's

1(a) Smt. Vgsanti W/0 Bharigonda Patil
      ----------  Age = 555 yrs. 006: hoursewife
Dfi%33?W3@N5fi?5Efi59UNflfi P5TxL 1(b) Piragonda, S/u Durigonda Patil
SQ YR§g'K§G.EEEAflI;WEAIBAG Age

T v'aV fH;" Both are n/at Biradi,

Efilfifififi" <'. '. .
y;_v *A'v 3} } Taq: Rdibng, Dist: Belgaum. p/
'*,""' 'u_ ,''.k ... RESPDNDENEs "
" 5EE&nEILEfi USS 1?3:1} er nu A£T PEAENST THE
_ _ 953531;» IN we
j, <EQ;99:Mgg__wM THE FELE 03 THE II AEDL. CIVIL JUDGE
 ~ gag fifi}}; & MEMBER, Aumcr, EELQAKM, AWARDING
 °'~'---.L?OI{EEf£ES.ATIE3$I sax: Rs.55,0m:w'~-- WITH INTEREST AT 8%
 3!f.'»a.._ "mm: TE-E amz: car' PETITIGN TILL REALISATIDH
** =AH3_EIx:Na LIABILITY an $93 AEFELLAET HEREIN.
Co§ieeted=vi&e chamber order 1)&£\
 H  .

9%

W IQ, 

: 3? years, 000: Agriculture

_. .4. gunman... n-aunun



Rs.2o;§me;--.

3 MF&3E'1"Ci. 35432034

additiwn, it is contended that tha billa datefi,

9.3.99

and 1§.5.99 are issued mare than §W§§$£§ H

aftar tha accident

unreliable.

3. Having hfiard tug laa£n%§ c0fin5§L £d§TEh§
apgellant; axamined thg¢,§m9&§n§§ #jgfigfi$fit” and
award, garusefi the matariQE Qfi iéc%#fig fi¢th anal
and fiwcufientaxfr Q§ndi%%§fi§bi§;g_%fi§ alaimant

suffered injury :5 tfié”fiart§fi;_§n tug accident due

ta tha gash and “fl®§i§ge§§” fifi§fii@§”Wd§ the bum
halanging tn the 7apfiei§§$§Q xD %@§h claimant waa
tzeatad by fir5_uS¥§hi:, E{Sfia$; an Orthopedic
auxgamn daring fifi$¥§eria§ fram’7.2.98 ts 9.3.99 as

evident fimm flExt;§€Sg bill dated 9.3.99 far

A ‘Th;s7;$i11 disclases that the

c1ai$afi§ wfi3 an i%§afiient in the hospital far 33
~L §%ya§ ‘[f fiét;$¥?. bill dated 19.5.99 ia for
R’»a$;i£;Sé§£{“af A.fi.Shaixh Hcmeopathic Radical

Cmi1§Q§ .$§§gital, Eelgaum, cextifying that the

claimfiht was an inpatient tram 10.3.98 to 7.4.98

UK

and treatment, lhQnfi§R

3 lvd1’-395.}!-K3. 35-‘l~”19’.1-I»

far pazkimsans disaasa and not for the injuriéa

suatained in the accident.

3. it is unf9rtunat$ thaé””‘dn:ing f §ne7 :

pandenmy mf the claim yatition and aftfir x颢rdifig *

evidanme the alaimant is 5aifi 1tQ $av¢’afli§E;Md$

28.lG.§9 ax Eiraj, whi1g ua&§%fi §:§atfiéht{; a$
evidant frmm. the photos£§t ‘¢4@f §ff’fihm daath
certificate issued bf thé %§fi§e%fi%d_§fit%ority and
agganflsdfi ta I.AiigE§§5 fié: fim§l$§ding’ the legal

heira mf thavfié6e$$$d:§<

In the :&auitg.$hiB_a§§eal ia without merit
and_ViB' fi§aQx@iug1y*,&igmissed. The amaunt in
d&§0sit:a;¢n§ %it$ §he L.C.R. is directed to ba

t&a$smit£afi'tc tga nae? farthwith.

Sci -2
Judge

Pi.'.~'f"""