High Court Karnataka High Court

A Ismail vs Mohiddin on 2 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
A Ismail vs Mohiddin on 2 November, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil And H.S.Kempanna
 

1
113' THE BSEGH coum $5' KA.RI~¥A.TA$A AT 

DA'§'ED ms TIE was my ex-' mxmmER%,;»%2e1;é: %  %  A
PRESERT "   . _
THE I'iGN'BLE 2.m...:z;sT1c5 H."1§:. mg;  
mm HGNBLE m,  k

M.F.A. I~ze.:§;;*5.}--3,h  W %«  

1. Axmm  
samvxs   % 
res? m::..o1z:«. % 

 Q :

mam.
MR» 9? I"    .'

2. A1m~2a%.%¢ A _ .
W£f3.AISEé§_?;  %
Rfik sgzsrm 

 mgmmga V %%%%% ..
V *BB:L'1mr:eM:>Y TALUIC.

3. " ._  
;«?s.£El') gaézrf 44 Yaw,
 !x".I$MAII.., 2:*<:xsA:91"m Mmm,
ms? KILLOR, 3m..THA§{iAm* TALUK

  swaamzamma Sm. SAVITHA suarrv, ADVS.)



 .

1, Mflflwflifi
sze mm
was, zwxra mam,
Im.mmY,UDu1°1'rQ., 
2. I{AR.I""i% Sffififl
M31803, AFAL co-era,
EOUSIRG scscmrv, J.B.NAGA;a__
Mflfiififll - 59. '

3. okmsrrm. mstmancs-3,  zxm, %    
mmoa, BALFAN APTS, s;v;1;s§,<;a.w,<V
IOGESHWARI(WEST)     '

am    V 
me; awe  A _

4. Momww   1" %
 nmcmnmars

(By Sri g  saw 1=4~'.<Z)i§T1:?..??l ' 
32 - NQTICE 3:;«::=,1=}3:z~:sm v.'mz--vzo. 19.09.2902

R1 & R.45..;. 

  L% . 3i 3€P[§§.§5 1: Q &&&&& Rbxs 173(1) 0? MV ACT' AGAINS'E' mm
 Awaan Dam; 23.7.2904 PASSED m was N0.

aséswas. 02mm: 0? THE nu. ma. JUDGE zsanm.) &

  ADD';   PARTLY moms mm CLARE

mmcfi ma" kcemmsanou Am awea mmacw

 L « .. L as cowsrqsxrxcm

 V *i*:_1:Is AFPELAL cc:

OH FDR HEARING, 1% DAY,

 

33:. 'K.  J, DELIVER THE Fomowme;

   



3
JUDGMENT

Tlfis 333%! is dfmwtaai against the
j and award dated 20.07.2064» 3

No. 654119% an tha ms of me.

(Sr.Dn.) aaaaxm na1MACT, I§é}.1pi[Vi3e1-u;;m_v.'”” gm ‘ “


m as 'Tribunal' fer I:rrevity}.     im
amp-umd gunmen:      of

Rs.7,488z- with 3% the date of
1″””‘”‘-“°” *5″ wémd W
the quanmyza by the Tribunal,
the this apmax seeking
tsf

Ti.’-s of the aacident and reazsultant

are wt in dfipum. The d

‘A’.f:}if’ about tlarw days and midmem

and ha hag prwuwa mg mama’

. ‘Tim-‘ §§,?88{ – and thaw xngxht ham spam rmscmzbie

towards ooxrveyanm, 3911115’ {and ax

AM

1/

4

amxsziant 4::-hargm. This aspect :31″ 11113 mafia”

been Ixmkfi” imam nnr cansidm-ad. p:2′::per1y_

‘I’:-ibml and awaréed nmwge cxuxnpcmation : – 3 >

appcflanta and the fa;
rwP0&ant-~Insurar1x:ev ‘

5:. Lcarnad thy: cmtset
fairly proper if

axmtmr adaiaon ‘tn what has

been’: awaféefi The aaid submiaaimx Tm

.. V

pmmzsal of the m1 and

and time submiagicn caf the

V lflarilfi far the partam and tak:mg’ ima

‘ the facm axfl mr::%’ tanam of the case,

‘ it 5.1; ta award anatw” ?T2C§,OCW]~– in additian tn

$4

,5′ _

V’

5

the eampenaafian awarded by the Tribunal, in

flu} aerttlemant 0f the claim.

6. The Respcndm N03 – IIm2.zm.nx::e_

(iirwtad ta deposit the

!2e,amf- with intaast at p..jé.;*– fIfim»

petition an the date of rm11$a’ at’
three weeks from the’ c::;V;5yVAVVof the
judit and award. ‘» h’ ‘V

7. On gf the Imuranae
Compa11}*, :1:}m equafly in flamaur
efafl um

aljflw accardxng’ ly.

Sd/-3
Iudgé

34/ ’91
Judge