{"id":1432,"date":"2011-05-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2"},"modified":"2017-11-03T02:07:45","modified_gmt":"2017-11-02T20:37:45","slug":"bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2","title":{"rendered":"Bajaj Allianz General Insurance … vs Puttalingaiah on 26 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance … vs Puttalingaiah on 26 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Subhash B.Adi<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BABIGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 26*\" DAY OF MAY 20} 1\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HONBLE MRJUSTECEI, SUBHASH 3.33;): i'  \n\nMISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.431t3\/i20\u20ac3j3   \"\n\nQALV\n\nMISCELLANEOUS FIRST APP15:;AL\u00bb--No.:i52?7\"[J~2\"r;nV8 i.  'V\n\nIN M.F'.A.N0.ef1~819\/2008\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nBajaj Allianz. General\n\nInsurance Co. Ltd.,\n\nDivisional Office, NCL353, ?   ;\nSri. Hari Complex, Seetha Vi1a\"s.Road \nMysorew 570 024   1  . ..\nBy NO.105A, Cea1\"s4P}a;\u00e9a, 3;._S'E1o:5r,\"=   \n136, ResidenCy\u00ab*R0adf_.5;'. 'V  __   \n\nBanga10re--~ 560 025. \"    \n\nBy its Manag\u20ac:r.\"=._  =:.,__ _  _ = ~   .. APPELLANT\n\n(By Sri. O:'\u00a7\\!Iaf_Lc:217V1V, M _ \"  ' \n\nAND:\n\n_ V 1 . Fgiiiialingai\u00e9th\u00e9 H V'\n\n. .,  ,3\u00a7E..+.}7%ars\" '  ---------- ~ \"\nV ' V. Sfo Nn\u00e9g\u00e9ggwda @ Guddigowda\n* j}'*Eu1'i'ig\u00e9Mr\u00a7:'pg4ra}, M13. Halli Post\n 'MaCi':ii1;j_tq,'V'\u00a7\\,~\u00e9i'andya Dist;\n\n _2, \"'\u00a7::.K,._:;me'sha,\n\nM33013,\n.A [LS\/okiemchaiah\nV V 2.5, Lakshmanaiah Redd}? Building\n'  Basavanapura, Barmerghatta\nBarzgaicsre ~ 560 \u00a3383 .. RESPQNQENTS\n\nu SEEEL Pfaseetha C2, A\u00e9v. far R}: R2 Serve\u00e9}\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
These two appeals arise out of the judgmeniend “5′..VV:V’\u00a31_:(:{\u00a7’t’___iV1;1’_<\/p>\n
M.V.C.Ne.158\/2007′ dated 28.12.2007men the~’i::e:”1jjo{“*2~iZ1.A5c,fi*.;u,7-<\/p>\n
Maddur.\n<\/p>\n
2. M.F.A.N0.43i9\/2008*  is4&V”.”bj;I 2
\nM.F.A.No.2527\/2008 ie by the   iviasiiiquestioned
\nthe judgment and award    liability and
\nquantum of compensation  has sought for<\/p>\n
enhancement of c;0n5ipe’i1sation. –.\n<\/p>\n
3. The faet\u00a7*\u00bbvieae1irig’tothese apfjealse\u00e9ife:
\nThe e_ia,irnant eiivstainecigrieyousi injury in a road accident<\/p>\n
that 0eeui?i’ed_  abnut 3.30 p.rn., he was moving<\/p>\n
on the iefi isidieieofi  Maddur~i\\\/Iaiavalli road near<\/p>\n
Sushee1g1I1inia’s ‘V i’z1n%:1′,’1 a’V’Bnjaj Disenvery meter bike bearing<\/p>\n
:’v’._Nn;I{A’4i5i\/E’K4rfiQ38 eainew in a rash and negiigent manner and<\/p>\n
\ufb01nished  uijhe.:~*eIaimant, as a resuit of which, he feii down.<\/p>\n
i  he  shifted to Maddur Government Hespitai, from<\/p>\n
” .i_h’e1’e he  shifted in KIMS Hespitai, Bangiaore.<\/p>\n
 He was treated as inpatieni fer about three months.<\/p>\n
 ‘-7i7he:’eeii;ier aiso he was under ireainieni. F :31’ the ingury, he was
\n“–4.Ve\u00a7iVei’e1:eei and {he Deeier has epine\u00e9 ihai {he eiairnian\u00e9, has<\/p>\n
beeozne pa\u00a7’2:;;:2ie\u00a7’ie an\u00e9 has ins: senea\u00e9ien give? heih {he iewei”<\/p>\n
insureii ” L.\n<\/p>\n
_ 4 _
\nlimbs and as a result of which, he cannot sit or stand on his own.<\/p>\n
He has opined that there is 100% disability. The ‘l’ribu__r1al on<\/p>\n
appreciation of the evidence held that the el21ir:1ant is entit-lel(l_ for<\/p>\n
Compensation of Rs.l5,l5,=f\u00a7~23\/– with 6% <\/p>\n
unsatisfied with the same has Sought for\u00bberrhahtiemerttl”whereas;’V. <\/p>\n
the insurer had challenged the same  thee grolt:.r1’d.’of <\/p>\n
well as on the quantum of eompe’r1sa_tion.”  V’<\/p>\n
5. Sri.O.Mahesh, learned Colineel appearifighw-fo\ufb02t\u00e9hel insurer
\nsubmitted that, the accideftt,  p.rn. on
\n6.2.2007 on Madd1;r~Malayol’ltA._ro.\u00e9tet\u00bbA}Sjoeheelamma’s land.<\/p>\n
The claimant was;  to: ‘at 6.30 pm. and the
\ncomplaint    by the brother of the
\nelaimant.:vVhV’;lliou:gv.ih_v   evidence has stated that,
\nhe was :;\u00a7L:e\u00a31t\u00a2  Hospital, no records are<\/p>\n
produced to Show ae’V–_to7ybvl”1~:{lt was the nature of injury and the<\/p>\n
  aecidehtgv——–E-“is only at 8.30 pm. when the claimant<\/p>\n
VX3738′    Hospital at Bangalore, it is mentioned as<\/p>\n
RTAA  certificate – EXPB does not even hear the<\/p>\n
 Vehicle’ :3.trrr1ber, place of occurrence or any details as regard to
\n  \u00e9teejelertt, As an after thought, brother of the claimant has
\n I’  3 eomplaiht on 8,2.2i3(}?. The Complainant; M brother of the<\/p>\n
7.eEa.irr1a:zt; though has giver: the ntzroher of the vehiele thvoiveet in<\/p>\n
the aeeiderzt as K\u00e9y\ufb01t ;’ its the ez:3r:2\u00a7Ea\u00a7r:t_ ‘oar; he has not<\/p>\n
A 3 ..\n<\/p>\n
given the same number to the hospital. It has come in the
\nevidence that the claimant was taken to the hospital at Bangalore<\/p>\n
by the eemplairiant, the hoepital though has 111ent,ionedV–ae RTA<\/p>\n
case, but has not treated as MLC nor has informeet <\/p>\n
The brother of the Claimant eoutd not have <\/p>\n
ihfomhing the hespttai authorities as ‘”:’egard~’_’t0_ riatti’:e’i’v.ofV ‘ ;<\/p>\n
accident and the vehicle involved.  xfiactithiat <\/p>\n
not bear the vehicle number, faeethat dated V<\/p>\n
8.2.2007 and further, the spet~it1ah.aza1;’ “is.._HpVrepared on
\n19.2.2007, the seizure maha1:7Ja1=   on 19.2.2007, in
\nthe seizure mahazar’ it    of the vehicle
\nbrought the   the   was seized by the
\nPolice, it   the owner came and
\npr0dueed:’the–_  these documents, he submitted<\/p>\n
that, it creates’ seridus aisdito whether the scooter referred to<\/p>\n
_ in the’\u00bb(:.\u00a7}:3’i*i1p1aint Wasiifealijg invoived in the accident, if the scooter<\/p>\n
 vihx\u00abt31t}ed,_h:\ufb01Qthing prevented the brother of the claimant to<\/p>\n
trif:)t*tt:_  authorities and file a eompiaint immediately<\/p>\n
 eh the’\u00ab..sa::_ie’  He further submitted that, PWQ ~ Doetez’ is an<\/p>\n
it  Surgeen, he is not a eempeteht Deeter to speak. the
\n  The hospital reeer\ufb01 ehewe that the etaimant has
\n ,:\u00a7:_;if_\u00a7\u00a7ered paraptegia aha it eztty shame that he has Zest seneatieh<\/p>\n
” ~31} the \u00a7}{?:t\u00b0tf\u00a7{}Y2 et” the h\u00e9idjgg pa1*tteu}at’\u00a7}; teeter ttmht, there is no<\/p>\n
_ 5 _
\n100% disability. Doctor – PW~2 has also not stated as to on what<\/p>\n
basis he has determined the disability at lOO’3\/:s an<iV.-'-*1i1*ther<\/p>\n
submitted that RTC produced at Exs.P1? to P32, <\/p>\n
stand in the name ef the elaitnant. The ine:_jnf'1eV.eeifti'fieate*.<\/p>\n
produced at Ex.l3'i6 does not prove the"'ineen:\u20ac_e  <\/p>\n
Even assuming that the Claimant has 'sni"i1e:fed plarapIegia;vl'l_it.tl:ces<\/p>\n
not mean that there is 100% disahiiliity" not there  levssef iheorne. L'<\/p>\n
as the lands could be c1i_ltiV'ateti_..nfi'th the  Veithers. He
\nfurther submitted that, the'*ell0etet_  competent doctor,
\nhis evidence eught_'i1et  the Tribunal. He
\nrelied on the   that, PW~l in his
\nevidence has  to Macldur Government
\nHospital iavanel —  was taken to KIMS Hospital,<\/p>\n
Bangalore, l't*._eLwever;.  are produced tn show that the<\/p>\n
claimant was tak'en_lto1lvIa:ldur hospital. If really he was taken to<\/p>\n
  and tteated, the claimant eould have produced<\/p>\n
scmgie\ufb01cleeiiineiitsand it would have revealed the truth as to<\/p>\n
 whether the'  sustained by the elaimant was on account of<\/p>\n
 aeeiclent or net.\n<\/p>\n
 V V 6, As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, he<\/p>\n
 ___”:.snh;nitted that, the Tribunal has erreneeusiy awarded higher<\/p>\n
Weenipensatisn even azithetzt due eegard to the evi\u00e9enee en reeer\u00e9<\/p>\n
ans snhniitte\u00e9 that the inveivenien: at the vehicle has set been<\/p>\n
W 7 ,
\nproved by the claimarit, as such, the insurer cannot be hel_r:1__ liable<\/p>\n
to indemnity the Compensation.\n<\/p>\n
7′. On the other hand, learned Counsel appegzarihg <\/p>\n
Claimant submitted that. PW-i in his evidence has  he, <\/p>\n
was admitted to Maclclur Heepital iIiiti;e’tll},’\u00a7_:lt3’t::\u00a7?.’et’tiS\u00a7i;’ of: <\/p>\n
sf injury? he was immediately shifted ta Bangalorie T.’:”1’I1″Cl th\u00e9it <\/p>\n
how he was brought to Bangalorelrleepital. li”‘.’_.lV!2   in hie<\/p>\n
evideriee has eategerieally ‘jS’tett;ed_.”thettt-Itjelletiimant \ufb01ves \u00e9ttimitted to
\nthe hospital on 6.2.2007: it t’y;r;\u00a7$1’_v1.injur:es i.e., (1)
\ncompression fra<\u00a7:t::itet_'of u with spinal cord
\neompreesiori  ltetati' paraplegia with bowel
\nand   and the contusion were
\nC\u20ac)Y1fiI'II1\u20ac(:ll"Qf1 was operated on 15.2.2007<\/p>\n
with deC0mpi7ese.i0h. of " stiinal cord and posterior spinal<\/p>\n
instrumientetien atidiVv_stahilitzation with Steffi instrurrietitatiori<\/p>\n
'~;,1nde::_, genleral\u00e9tilanaesthesia. The patient was discharged on<\/p>\n
 arivi\u00e9e to sit with K.T.Brace more around in wheel<\/p>\n
 chair, "*\u00a7aS\u00a7:ei\\'\/8;..:tTi\u20ac:\u00bbV\u20ac1fr1\u20acI1'tS of the both lower limbs and bowel,
\n" -hletclder EiI1\u00a7i:baCk Care, Patient was eoiriirig for follow-up cheek<\/p>\n
_ l "tipl.AA3.e,eiitpatier:tt He epiried that there is iOO% disahiiitj; ta the
\n .___"\u00a7\u00e9rhel\u00a7;e body.\n<\/p>\n
.\u00a7{V\u20ac<\/p>\n
lg-\n<\/p>\n
8. Learned Counsel for the claimant also relied en the<\/p>\n
observations made by the learned Judge ef the Tribunal in the<\/p>\n
Course of reenrdiiig the evidence of PW–l. Learned Qeirzinsel<\/p>\n
submitted that, the Tribunal has Observed that the gas<\/p>\n
not in a position to give his evidence by entering __int”-:2. th_e’*wiitneeis <\/p>\n
box as he was brought an stretcher bygfixse neesensi.’ Sirieevvhe was<\/p>\n
not in a position to sit or stand. he Was”-pern1itte\u00a2;l”vtC’ gix:e”vhis.t<\/p>\n
evidence by lying on the streteherbeiere the’*–enurt.;i_= ‘l:’helVVas}l;)ect of’<\/p>\n
claimant was taken to Ma.d:1}ir   notlbeenlehalleiiged
\nin the \u00ab:a1:ninati0n.   the Complaint
\nis concerned  V”  that, after the
\naccident, his _l\u00a7\u00a2   to the Bangalore
\nhespital ::\u00a7:mn1eriViahtely*-adrhitted and because of the
\nserious nature’ vtreatrnent was given to PW~l. in<\/p>\n
this prneess;,__there’   ‘delay in filing the complaint.<\/p>\n
VNeVerth_elesie., after tiays of the accident, Complainant ~<\/p>\n
A’~elainiant’sbretgher went tn the Police Station and filed a eeinplaint<\/p>\n
as” he has stated that, his brother sustained<\/p>\n
it ggriexggiiig  en aeeennt of rash and negligent driving ei”
\nit :v’.v4A4″se’Q:)te%r bearing Nn,l<'A~5l\/K4238 and he was attending to his
\n hn3th'e:%,A'las his brether had last sensatinn in bath the legs and as<\/p>\n
M   there was a \u00e9elay in filing the complaint,<\/p>\n
 taken only Rs.7'G\u00a7O00\/~.\n<\/p>\n
– 9 \ufb02A\n<\/p>\n
9. As far as compensation is Concerned, learned Counsel for<\/p>\n
the claimant submitted that, PW~l in his evidence has stated<\/p>\n
that, even after the operation, he cannot stand, he eaifinoteven<\/p>\n
control urine, urinary pipe is fixed and the same”‘h’a~s__l'”t:o.__lee<\/p>\n
changed daily by going to Madclur Gevernment   <\/p>\n
in a week he goes to KIMS Hospital,::pl3angal1ore_.: <\/p>\n
treatment as outpatient. He hires _1uggage’a..uto ‘t\u00a7):.ll’f.El\\%f;l’. Helostg<\/p>\n
the sensation in both the legs.  got  acres  land, the<\/p>\n
entire agricultural work wa3._&_Contro1l’eti:’   said land
\nhe has grown paddy,   tender Coconut
\nbusiness apart   ls-usiness. He has
\ngrown sugarcane disability, he is not in a
\nposition tQ.euli_it}ate  Vl.ar;tlg  onaeeount of which, he has lost
\nthe ineorfgg, r ‘   submitted that, though the<\/p>\n
Tribunal hasVV”aeCeptecl  ::lisability at 100%, that the Claimant<\/p>\n
requires;perrnanehtassistanee to attend to nature Call and day-J<\/p>\n
A’~i;_o–.i:la3;., aetlivt\/’itie.sv;”still has not appreciated the cost and also future<\/p>\n
nietliealpe>\u00a7pei1ditui’e and has awarded meager compensation on<\/p>\n
V these heads.’ “As far as income is concerned, the inoorne of the<\/p>\n
it “‘l:v'”.4A”clgaimant “not less than Rs.liO0,000\/- per anhurn, but the<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
E:\n<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
it<\/p>\n
53;\u00bb!<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
E\u00bb :5<\/p>\n
-12-<\/span><\/p>\n
13. As far as vehicle number is concerned, claimant
\nhimself has stated that, the vehicle, which hit him, is hearing<\/p>\n
No.KA~5i\/K4238. it is not the ease of the insure4ri~.iii.e_t~._ihe<\/p>\n
motor eyele involved in the accident was heiienging hie.’<\/p>\n
person and there was eoiiision. In turnipihe evidence shows (her ,<\/p>\n
the vehicle belongs to a person in Bangaie.-i*e,. 3 Ji:siA.beea”nse ti”T;\u20ac],’\u20ac<\/p>\n
is a delay in filing the eompiairzi,-.ii canriei be  thathiheie.<\/p>\n
claimant has not suffered    accident
\ninvolving the vehicle in   other evidence led
\nor shown by the insurer. if is appreciated,
\nPW~1 has   ” vihrnrnediately after the
\naccident, he   Hospital from
\nwhere   and that aspect of the
\nmatter is  ieross-examination of PW~1. Prima<\/p>\n
facie it_sh0Ws’~ih::ii_the’=_aee’ieieni occurred near Maddur. The<\/p>\n
 PWA-2 ~x’D’oe-tor clearly shows that he had treated the<\/p>\n
‘eiairneitei   evidence, he has stated that the ciairnani: was<\/p>\n
inpei\ufb01ieni,  operated and has suffered paraplegiai iess 0f<\/p>\n
  iesensatienkiri heth the legs, he has been advised is move on wheei
\n   eannei sit or stand er Walk. This is fortified by the
\n ___”‘i’.ehsei’vaiioen hf ihe iearned Judge ef the Tribune} iha: PW-i W<\/p>\n
i\u00e9\ufb01eieiniani was V\u00a73\u00a3’\u00b0{)’L\u00a3\u00a7%:?’i’\u00a7. en sireieher and {he iearne\u00e9 Judge fesiin\ufb01<\/p>\n
iihei rzeiiher he eeuiei si\u00e9; zier eeuie SiE\u00a7iE{f\u00a7 ari\u00e9 was eiiiiwe\u00e9 {he give<\/p>\n
, l4 –\n<\/p>\n
Having regard ta this evidence on record and having regard to the<\/p>\n
medical evidence showing that the elaimant hasulabeeome<\/p>\n
paraplegic and he Cannot stand and sit, in such ei;’e’u:iis.tah{_:es,<\/p>\n
the elainiant requires continuous treatment and..alS’Qa’V.pers0n’  <\/p>\n
attend to him. It is in these eireunistaneepslt {the eVidehee_phas <\/p>\n
be appreciated and eornpensatien, has grantedt’<\/p>\n
iii. The Tribunal has aeeepted that sthe evlairnanit has’<\/p>\n
become lOO% disabled. New    Atahat is the
\nContribution the claimant  liave’  the family and also
\nto the agricultural work.   only person to
\ncultivate the   llagjreatei’ impact on the
\nincome of  as   er; ‘the Cultivation, if it is
\ncultivatedlthrcitigh;sgrhe  then there would be some
\nloss of :nt\u00a7c.:;_1e.V  stand in the name of the<\/p>\n
father QI.’_Y10li. lheing .theh’sc>n”,: the Claimant is entitled by way of<\/p>\n
“V’s:ia:ev-la} athe1*Vgise”‘tl’ie lands available to the family and his<\/p>\n
 of agricultural work is essential for deriving<\/p>\n
 ._  ‘income. if the service of the claimant is taken
\n alexgen at l?sl.%%,500\/- per month, the age of the Claimant being 34
\n  “the” elaimant is entitled for Rs.8\u00a764~,OGO\/– {Rs.4,500\/-
\n  as against Rs. lO\u00a750,GOQ\/\u00bb awarded by the Tribunal. As<\/p>\n
‘afar  less at aizieziit\u00e9es granted by the ‘l’:*ibti:1al at Rs. ili.Q\u00a7,\u20ac30Q\/~:<\/p>\n
pain aiad suilileringg at R.sil,\u00a7G\u00a3CiG\u20ac3f\u00bb: \u00a7l”<'11'1Sp{}l'\u00b0l\u00a3ilLl{}i"E charge at<\/p>\n
_  –\n<\/p>\n
Rs.52,200\/~, as the elairnant had hired luggage auto and the said<\/p>\n
person has been examined as PW~3; further the niedieai<\/p>\n
expenditure at Rs.i,O’?’,i223\/~ are not on the higher <\/p>\n
any amount of eorriperisation would not bring back’ hisVV’gioi;;_”of
\nhis past life. As regard to the futurev-;rn’ed–i.oa1e\u00e9expendiiure,ffodod ‘
\nand nourishment during treatmehti  adttiendant. 2<\/p>\n
compensation appears to be on ti1(i:4′”I\\’T>_\\?x7\u20acI’ side.’ _The that the V<\/p>\n
claimant was in hospital for aboututhree-,rnonths,_thereafter he
\nhad gone as outpatient and  on treatment,
\ncompensation towards. attendant:  and nourishment
\nand further  opinion, requires<\/p>\n
enhancement: ” V   _
\n15,” Considerin\u00e9g ‘ thensarnegml find that, instead of<\/p>\n
Rs.70i0OOz\/-~. medical expenditure, same is<\/p>\n
enhanced to  1;'()<I),Q0A(A)–,\/_'d–V'i~.';e., additional Rs.30,000\/~; towards<\/p>\n
dvdatitenddaiiit '\\'rV'\\7'}l'.'i$I1v is inevitable and which is required to<\/p>\n
'he'  to go to hospital, he requires to engage a
\n    require additional sum of Rs.-40iO00\/~.\n<\/p>\n
Fnrthe\u00e9r, ..io’oddand nourishment, ii’ advised, requires another
\n   Hence, eiairnant is entitled for additional surn of
\n  iiowever, as against toss of future earning of<\/p>\n
“”vfa\u00e9.’:oiso,ooo;-i the same is reduced to Rs.8i!E34ii3\u20ac3i3;’~. Henee, in<\/p>\n
nay ogiiniorr, it is just and &1}\u00a73?G\u00a7}Ei8i\u20ac is reduee the eorngierisation<\/p>\n
-15′-\n<\/p>\n
by Rs.1,01,000\/~ i.e., claimant is entitled for Compensation of
\nRs.14,14.51~23\/~ as against Rsi15\u00a515,=’–}23\/~ awarded by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal wiih interest the\/ream.\n<\/p>\n
Ae::.4~319X2{}O8 filed by <\/p>\n
allowed in part. M.F.A.N0.2527\/2008 filed <\/p>\n
dismissed. The amount in deposit be i.1_”a11;<;fe:f:'\u00e9d_i0._th.\u00e9Tribun_a}'.<\/p>\n
 333%<\/p>\n
KNM\/~<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Bajaj Allianz General Insurance … vs Puttalingaiah on 26 May, 2011 Author: Subhash B.Adi IN THE HIGH COURT OF’ KARNATAKA AT BABIGALORE DATED THIS THE 26*” DAY OF MAY 20} 1 BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTECEI, SUBHASH 3.33;): i’ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.431t3\/i20\u20ac3j3 ” QALV MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APP15:;AL\u00bb–No.:i52?7″[J~2″r;nV8 i. ‘V IN M.F’.A.N0.ef1~819\/2008 BETWEEN: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Puttalingaiah on 26 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Puttalingaiah on 26 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-02T20:37:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bajaj Allianz General Insurance … vs Puttalingaiah on 26 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-02T20:37:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2\"},\"wordCount\":2369,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2\",\"name\":\"Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Puttalingaiah on 26 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-02T20:37:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bajaj Allianz General Insurance … vs Puttalingaiah on 26 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Puttalingaiah on 26 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Puttalingaiah on 26 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-02T20:37:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bajaj Allianz General Insurance … vs Puttalingaiah on 26 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-02T20:37:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2"},"wordCount":2369,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2","name":"Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Puttalingaiah on 26 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-02T20:37:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-allianz-general-insurance-vs-puttalingaiah-on-26-may-2011-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bajaj Allianz General Insurance … vs Puttalingaiah on 26 May, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1432","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}