High Court Karnataka High Court

Anil @ Anil Kumar vs Huli Gowda on 21 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Anil @ Anil Kumar vs Huli Gowda on 21 July, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil And H.Billappa
m
§
m
g
€
2
%
§
fix:
Q
P"
§
3
@
Q
3
§
3
§
5
2
%
§
EL
0
§
3
O
9
x
Q
1
§
§
3
%
§
fin
Q
§
3
$
as
X
§
3
§
%

xx THE HIGH COGRT 02 xaaaamaxn AT aagaanonn
DATED THIS $32 21" any 03 JULY 2§Q§_
PRESENT "'"'" "'"

THE HON'BLE MR.Jvé:IéE'H§BiLLA£fi§f 7 
xxscnnznxgcas FIRST A§PEALVNO,$§i3f2Q05{MV}

BETWEEN:

ANIL 3 ANIL Kuuan , .2'

3/0 PUSHPARAJ __ %W_f.

AGED ABGUT 22 rna3s»_ j ? ;._<g, '*»

R10 RAMANAHALLI: ;=,.' 1_'  . ""~*

caxxanenaua-57? 1OI~i_Va;,*»V*_Ff,J
_',f  .' %'Ag# Agymnaamw

{By Sri.K M §3$fiRAd};aDV,?- "~w*

AN!) :

1 HmL1~aawnA »%

  %%%%% 

, AQED mafia? 33 rmaas
V:TR3£T0R'DE$VER

'KA*i8fiW7284O~41
cnzxxzuanhanx
cfiimnasaaua

   

» HfiHJE gang
_»j$/9*B0aE5ownA
'. &G£E7ABGUT 33 YEARS
'»g"'cflRER as TRAQHSEEEARERG
 *~xa isfr 284o~41
'=.2EHsIcN Hflfihbha
CHIKMAEALUR~5?? 191

$3'!

 

mwmmzm%%Mmwm&%%&%@%@@w%?@?m

THE HON'BLE HR.JUSTICE n,$;£aéiLAT u."

§ order.

Awmm ww mMwmm§mmM mmm mwwm wvjrmmzwnmam rgmm «wwum ma” Mmmmnmm I-mam umagm awmmmmzw mm-5 QQLMT Q? K&RNfi.TM€,A Hififi QQUM

3 UNITED ENDIE INSURANCE CC} LTD
CHIICMAGALUR BPANCI-I
CIflI(HhGAE.:UR’-5’2′? 131
RE? BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

flm»…:n£é§a&n§mr£ ‘=u

{By sMI.HARINI SHIVANBNHA, 33?. EOE E§é;W’%
R.1-Notice di5pensad_with;_”,R.2§§§rved);*,’

$313 HEA FILED Wfi{s»_173{1}V 0? EV ACT
AGAINST was JUD§aEHT ARE Amaan DATED 11.1.2095
PASSED xx MVC Nagzc?/EG02<m§=$HE FIEE OF THE
PRINCIPAL nzsrnxcr jaUae£jv§.jm3nBER, HACT,
CHEKMfiGALUR, £mz$;¥' ;aLLcwifie THE CLAIM
PETITIGK«"¢EQR=g goavauggmxqs Ann SEEKENG
ENmmNczmfiNTfQ£~¢0n§£N$A$1on.

L%rH:g 3%; éefixmé 6% F03 Anxxssxen wnxs
DAY:–N.K;E$IIL:JgxDELIVERED THE EGLLOWING:

ITU D G K E N T

~ < T§efigh this matter is pcstad fox

&&mi§§i¢h, with the consent of learned

éaufiaél fer the partiea; the matter is

hsar:d on merits and disposed of by this

6. ‘Re have heard the laarnaci c:c>.ur;’s=al
fm: the appellant and the lea::nec1_«.._§;-:$j1fii2_é’3.V.

for the zrasgmmdnnt-Insurance

5. On caretul perus§a.l ‘«.£.>f

and award passed by ‘i:~.¢P:£§.’I’ri1:v1;_i_12a*.J.j.g: nut’

find any e::xe.;:§ ./._9£ 19$’: iuatarial
irregularity in’ _.~’.§;§<::z§t§:a'z¢§;:zsation under
cliff-e2z:e:;;t' ;§L§'e'atn towards ‘less xaf amenities

._T.é>’fand ‘loss of inc:-matte during the

treatment’. Having regard to the

.i.xij.3; rie5 sustained by the appellant and tha

§’3;.%W§%&?&W5;'”i3~¥E$iW ‘?COUR”E’ @F %KRNI\TAKK “THIGH CGURT’ OF Kémwkmm MGM mum Q? KAR;MA’5mKA §~W?§%€

H “.._a::’§:a.tua, we are at” the view that the

Imam W mwfirmm E~i’m£?§’-§”Cf€}’?UMf?’j.’*颔xI”é”T-Vf;v>’_’;’

appellant is «entitled to 6. sum at
Ra_.40,€300f-* tewarda ‘l-333 sf amenities of

life’ and R£s.}.0,00{)/- towards ‘lcasa at

The claims Tribunal is direcfiafi to

disburse the dzyoaiteé amaunp Ifidf the

Inaurance Ccmpany.

Draw up the award a¢céxdingiy}v’

%% JUDGE

WW%&T&KA WQH €0URT WW KKRNATKKQ Hififi COURT OF KAKNAWLKA HWH KEQUR’? OF §€ARNA”%’MW¢ fiffliififi

mr*

swam” flu? %§k&N&?M{A MEQH $w%W~2′;’§_

appellant immediately on da§§E$t]f$§ V£§é;