✦ Karnataka High Court · 28 Nov 2011

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, BELGAUM v. MUTHAPPA HU CHAPPA GOUDANAVAR

Case Details Karnataka High Court · 28 Nov 2011
Court
Karnataka High Court
Decided
28 Nov 2011
Length
1,572 words

Summary

A structured summary for this judgment hasn’t been prepared yet. The full text is below.

Precedent status

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

Original judgment text

KAR 4825; wherein this Court has held that insurance 5 company is answerable to the extent of contract. P.J.NARAYAN VS. UNION OP INDIA AND OTHERS 2004 ACJ 452.

6. The learned Advocate for the claimant supports the assessment by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.

7. Section 12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act imposes a duty on the employer pay the compensation and thereafter, insurer has reimburse the compensation but in the facts of the case both the employer and Insurance Company are impleaded at a stretch. So, a similar situation as the one found under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act is attracted. If the case is independently conducted against the employer, then the submission could have been accepted. D C D I D C D I ( 2 r C D C D C 2 D C D C , ) C C j D C • • • D C 0 C ) C D C D C D C D C C D C 0 D C D I D C D C C : D C D C 5 D C i Z D C D C D C ) C r ) C D I D C D C ) C D I 2 2 i D C S C ç D C D C . . ) C ) C ± r i : D C 2 D C + r L Q C I C C D C ) C ) C C D C J ‘ . . i D C D C D C ) l C D I D C “ D — I h T e C ) C D C : D C D I i D C D C D C 2 c D C D C D C C ÷ - D C D C C X ( . ) k ) d C D C . • . . D C C D C ) C p D C x c 2 D C D C D C D C ) C C 2 D C r 2 ) C j 2 D C 2 i D C ) C r 2 ZC C C “ C i r C 8 2 C 8 C C C C > ) ’ D c L D C C C • D I D C . C C C ) C D C C C D C D C P D C 5 D C + r D C r ) C i D C $ * r D C i j D C D C D C : D C D C 2 r D C E D C D I C D I D I D C D C I D C . . D C D C : E r c I D C2I a D r ) C D I i C D C D I 7 1 1 ( 2 C D C D I D I D C ) C C D C ) 1 7 ( ) C D I D I ) l C P 0 D C . i c a r a P — 0 D C ) . g i 0 c , I ( 0 - 0 0 0 3 . D C j D C D 0 0 ’ i c D C r 0 0 D C D $ 0 p0 ‘ . 5 . ! ± r 0 < S • . r 0 “ . j 0 ) L a . > < > D C r D C j T C < . 0 0 ? 2 D C 0 j r C c r c n r 0 0 . 0 D C • r E0 0 D C . j 0 0 0 i 0 O 0 D r 0 D C D C r a + r i ç 0 - D C D C a . . u D C D C ) ( 0 5 P 5 r p + r D C D D C ) ( . . j r t r D C D C C ) j p I 0 ( . D C S ç D C . i . c . - a p : D ( 0 0 ) D C ) Q ) J 2 D C — D C — f I D C S a S S q e a Bt B ? £ i ! 0 L W b N c 0 , p 0 a a a i c r - I S4 n g p a B a t 05t a I 3 1 q e a 0 . a . S a ‘ a 3 1 3 • • 0 * q o l f O . , . 2 ) i C 0 9 B a a n c l z t

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments