High Court Karnataka High Court

Lakshmamma @ Puttalakshmamma vs New India Assurance Co Ltd on 11 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Lakshmamma @ Puttalakshmamma vs New India Assurance Co Ltd on 11 August, 2008
Author: K.L.Manjunath & A.S.Pachhapure
IN THE EIGH CGURT OF KARRAEAKA AT BAEG§h¢fi$uTTf 

QAEED $313 $33 1:" may oE_gy$Us$;"2é¢S*  _

PRESENT

TEE EON'BLE MR. JUSTIflE_ K L,fiEHJUfi§ifi_ .
AND   % V2.   _v i
THE HQN'BLE ME. JUSTICE A;s.9Aca$a§URE

M.F"A&Hé;§§§§;g§;2GaéH_
BETWEEE: T  
1 Lgxsamamma @"9§%TA3§Es3kAm$§7«--

W/O Hofinfigawgfii

AfiED 3? YES, ;; «'rA _ ;
RxAm fifixfifijfig KEfi&£&RfifiRf""
BAEGAEQRE mGgTH_maLvR?_--
EAfiaALGR3. ' '~*.* 'x

2 CHIKKAHMA"g - V;
D29 3owmEGow&A'"
  ..... 

, RKAE as 581%, KAMELQNA ,
.VBA§GALGRE~§QR$H TALUK,
EAH$A;uRE,’.T-”

“‘3 cHA$nRA$HE$ARA

._ ‘s/9 KOENEGGWEA
‘*#?aAaaa 1?V¥RS,
»’ RfA$”§0.58fD, KAMhLAN&GfiR,
“yaafiaaaoxz noarg EALUK, EAHGALORE
~,_~R2p, BY THEIR MOTEER & fiATUR&L GUARBXAE
:*sx$.LAsKfimAmm& wa I A?PELL§RT

*§ § 4~SAReJA @ IRDIRA

YMJ

510 EONNEGOW$A
Aaam 16 YRS,
R/Ax NO.58!D, KAM&L&A$§R,w-_
BANGALORE NQRTE TALUK, Ba3GA;0$E;’ _ u.[ __
REP. BY THEXR MOTHER & NA§U§AL’GUARB:A§’f<."
$M?.LkSKHMAMHA THE 1 AEPELANT _"._" *

' . '; vayysmmzws

(By Sri : D s saxmaag & $R:§c,§u:TASwAME,%0R
Appmmmxms 3 é .. .

AED : V W” V

1 NEW IEDEA:AflSURkNCE fie LTEV flf
REP. By,:$s53gxA$ag;z _’j
No’52,5vI§§:’cGH§LEx;«m. 1

E$fia§KLGRE+§ éi¢ “~ —

2 K R ké:’AI\I;;’?tf1<?§:.?:'Ea .jjVs_;c:~..«_1é:uv.£A1A1a
MAJQR;°gAmHAHAEaK3§A£ALL:,
ANEKAL TaLuK,'BGmA$AN9RA PQST,
BANGALORE 9133,,

*~'iF.'x RESPGNDEHTS

{Bf 5&1 Ejséxxfix saxvamafina FOR R1;

reééza; U/S 1733) or Mr: AS’)? Aemrrsw THE

*3faflaaM2Nm,3Nm AWARD DAEED: 27,1’a3 FASSED IR bmc
» HQ 335Q;Ba an T33 FELE GP TEE 14TH aDnL. JU§GE &
‘MA£T,_§oURT 0? sMALn cassas, BANGALORE cxwz, scca

2¥{>.1Q. IE’AR’I’LY AIaLOWIf~3G THE CLAIM PETITIOH FOR

T__ “cay@ENsAmxom Ann ssgxzns EEHANCEMENT OF
‘~, “$QME$NsAmIoN.

This ayeal coming’ on. far ordfi§r_fifiis_ &ay%*_

MANJUNAEH, J, delivered the f011¢Wiflg:H @j

We fin not see any r§assnV t§” adfipurn the
matter, since the apfieiiafit Egg failed tb file fihe
§a§er back for the lag; £i§§:yéa£S;

2. Accor¢ifigiY.7th:$f§fipéfii-15 dismissea.

Sd/~
Iudge

H”*.”M. _____ EkLfi_
Judge