High Court Karnataka High Court

Venkatarangappa vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 25 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Venkatarangappa vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 25 February, 2010
Author: Aravind Kumar
 

« Mwwm mm mmnnunimnm ruwri E...A..!I.Jif(,.l«,f..J?' MAKNAZAKA !~i!GH CQURY OF KARNATAXA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIQH COURT 0!' KARNATAKA HEGH COU

INTHE HIGH oousrr ormammm  A '   
mmn nm on Tim whmv     A  

 

 

BENJEEN

1.

vnxxArani§H&A£J
8I0.I..AT3§R:’ *” k

A A _y

2.

8! O.

AGED

HO.3 smca mm rmamtrxm
mum ARI) H]G.WmM .

(By Sri: x..v.mmx we me1s:%nv.ms1R1,
Am)

1 mwvmu WP flMfiNfiBR&A ruun hwua§.:«;§)r KAKNPJAKA. HIE”.-3?’! QQURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CQURT 0? KRRNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KQRNQTAKA H!GH COW

AND:

1. OMEFPAL IHEIRAHCE C%A!lY V

n.<::.4-4145, Rzmmxcvcnmasnmn, _ A

130 SHWPHG COMPLEX.

BAHGAI.-% — 25.

BY ITS MAIIAGER.

2. MR.H.RAJA,
s;o.1u.m2mmA amt, – %
ms.mi<3A'r3o51/1,

% . RESPDHDEIITS

(By W R1)
gm. 173(1) or HIV Ac'r,, AGAIHST

FAME!) N 3:1"?-HO.'-.132]2006 ON TI-E FEE GP 14'"!

BAHGALE CITY, SOC}!-10,. PAR'l'LY

Ammmxmajrmmxcsrmsr mm: c<:: 'non.
% Amucme as Fm mwaanns

%%.3_ ::av,1*zm:ccxm'rm:1vsmD11«m :

'flnwpelfli 01%: mthemsmsfiadhy

ammawdpauaeaannqvcnaxaz/mos

da1aad@3.0+.2007'mwefledthha.ppwlamm$r

&m%&fim. %

z mwwm mam Mmmmmka Mmm £;€.)5.II;';"<C;Jr'~ ESARNAFAKA I-HG!-I GQQJRT 0%' KARNATAKA HIGH CQURT OF KARNATAKA HEGHCOURT OFKMNATAKA HIGHCOU

4. On aomidm-kg the pxmim of

1.

26.11.2005 :2′ abouf’-1320 3
when the

ma beafl_EVoA.-KA-05-EG-
fiat the

of It: Bearing

his

ma ‘manna

~ what the above

% oomzendedghl the
pgmon?

A ‘ ts:

& pefitii puma: that
in what fium. and firm:

% mommra m ampere of aw ebdm mmama
momnppmum mm namely flan can Rudraaha
I-LV. am mm and gamma mm to P9. The
1-aupondm did not lend any oral «fig and ma
éwtfi msragat mm Camidaarm the pleadm

fir/..

2 zmmm” W!”-‘lKAl(NATRl§;K” 21″:!’¥.’§!”‘f’-‘9.-‘Q5.-l*l§’E”‘fl;F”‘EEKRNAYKIQA “!’i!$!’i’ fimmr 95 imRNATm€A” Him”? ccunr-19$ KARNATAKA;”HiGH”cmm1′ “£35 KARi”~!A1*flKA”HmiH’C’Q’Ui

c:on\m1t:n’ nnl hands is in lower

t

an the mpm1mtno.1 mg of
the «am tmdaroti the mm
.1: 43 years ma and
suppom the mum also

no==:n’dn=g’ s.W.,m.- sued’ .

d@
T H’m,t:what%? K? 4
. fa r/’

3. Whatordnr?

to tale: a contrary View about the we cut’ me _

what has hem stand in Ex.P8.

12. The .3; ofthe daacaugfi
Swh Vania am’ after: 11:. Dcfi 1′

aawfiar npamdas 3099 Ac: 1:; be
upward as ’15’ amythe ‘(so the legal
hem of the aeoema 19.3 find
it in gs:

b mleen at fiat 9 mt
dilpuusd by the Hm,
at m.3:s.ooo/-

the income at’ the

–V at Rs.24,€}mf..

*7 11$: Fmnal Expem – Ra.24.ooo;-3
,, L’ H cf ‘I5’, tha mmpemafinn

§ §;:m§m” KW KAKNMKAKA KEGH C933? Kkfiflflifififl %’€E£7a7*E'”§ EJWMKE” Q55 KARNAYAKA. HIGH GQUK3″ HF KARNATAKA Mifivfi Cflfififlf £3? KARNMIAKR §’£lGl’f CCIHJE

as the hgal mm of the amused
‘lulu of im%’ wank! be Rn.3,60,tfiOI-
(Ra.2+,00O/a x 15 multipfierj. 1%, this campecnaafien

ofR¢.3,69,QOD]- is awardd tnwanis law 151′ Imame tn
5%

aepanaama in mbsmum to the

RI.2,18,000[ – awarded ty

13.Immfi.,..mm

awarded unm the ._i_s~-

“I M_ mu,” m

amunfinnal loss of
eummm meow to
mum in awarded by an

_I.h335 V 5: %.%d in

ag vRn.3,16,0®l-.

.” A above. fi1b& cram-is passed:
._

. asppealhanowad in part. Tm eammafion
% at m.3,1e,oo@- hr Tzmml ‘u wanna as

-.414E~’ts.4.0Q,O0Ol~ anclamraeshallaany mama: the mm or

V fifihfiomme dam ofpefianm thus dabaafpaygt.

E KQMRT Q? Kfiaflflkffiiflfl M567-E”! €203.53″! Q!’ KARNAKAKA H36»?! cmwm (W5 KARNATAKA HZGH GQLERY 05 i%ARNfi£§’Ai(A §-QGH CQIXRY (3% KARMfia”¥’AKA H331′? COW