IN THE HIGH COURT op rmnnarmm AT
H COURT OF KARNATAKA HIG
I
I'-'
DATED THIS THE 1'37 DAY op .2 % J' T
THE HONBLE IV '
BETWEEN: . . ..
M] s ROYAL :£L1§L4i*:}C:Ej::%¢L{$VAi
'2
Z
M
5
II-
'E
:3
nmoom, 132;§'VBF§jIGADE rzoan %%%% "
BANGAI.0RE4'2f;$.._ I
BY AUTHOR1:-mp :SIG1*?A. !~':'Y
%%%% M - . - ...APPELLANT
(BY sm me, an .)
AND: Y Ak
1.
K.A.rmTA$wAMY@ LFUTTA
_____
% smzm DE”CEAf£~1ED BY LR
sxmamlvm’ W2′ Q ARASAYYA
AGED ABOUT -4.{5~YEARS
V KALLIPALYA; ‘GUVLUR HOBLI
. -…1 uI\.1Il”‘I uuukf OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO
S/0 SIDDAIAH, MAJOR IN AGE
* Emir BOMMANAHALLI
% snzrvgann posr, HEBBUR norm
T wmmn TALUK AND DISTRICT
….RE SPONDENTS
(BY SR1 z<:UKK.uE RALMKRISHNA BHAT, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI.R.D.RENUKARADHYA, ADV. FOR R2)
(303 Hf)!H VflW'.E.VN3V3l JO LHROI} Rmu H-m..m……..,.
_. …………….. nnun wax: ur KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH couar or REZRNAIAKA HIGH
.. 5 ._
Puttaswamy. For the aforesaid masons. the
order of the Commissioner be set-aside.
4. On the other
Shri Kukkaje Ramakr1s’ hna
c:lajmaI1t argued that the ‘of
requires no cifiaafion
of law arises for Secondly,
the commissiorgci’:”£}ia{s which
Tn produced V on behalf of the
a1ao produwd by the
marked as Ex.D’7. A
pcruaa1 of_ report irldicate that there:
V1133 sustained in the accident
geek place, though arm two yearn. Saki’
: czfthe doctor given through RM. report
‘ x ;:bv:cn seriously queationsad before the
claimant was also examined but could not ba
as he died durirg the pendency of the
V. proceedings before the W’.C.CommJ’.3sion¢r. Therefore,
¥’5″.’Ii\’fK.l}I\-F\l ..!(‘\ t\xnsa-um. luau… .—_—— –