Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Kamala W/O Chandrakant Mirajkar on 29 June, 2011
Author: K.Govindarajulu
Bench: K.Govindarajulu
"RE Ss Ee IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29% DAY OF JUNE 2011 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJULU © M.F.A. No.719/2006 [WC] DIVISONAL OFPICE, NEW. THROUGH REGIONAL OFFIC P KALINGA RAO ROALD. BANGALORE 27 4: BY DULY CONT (By Sri, V RIDATAR ADV) AND: con, TANDRARANT MIRAUBAR 4 ae SESH S/O CHANDRARKANT MIRAJKAR LYEARS Bhs . APPELLANT Ae ° (By Sn. SV SHASTRI ADV. FOR RI-GR 5 3041) OF ad AT rep: THIS MFA IS FL MENT AND Of MUS g VOU DIV ISION-L, HUBLI, AW: AR 1.59.800/- WITH INTERES DEPOSIT OF _COMPENSATI O DIRECTING 7 F THIS APPEAL COMING ON: | 27 DELIVERED THE Ft othe Commissioner. fNcifigs TeCors "subrhission of the learned advocate for the Ino Pel a ch om claimant is that the p olic y is taken by the deceased. Jt is no any is proper, if do not call for interference. other hand, the learned hah! o ead se and ~ A mi eri be 4 thi? PEy gs SEL LTEE tee Hae sbeNa Piel UPd DOLIC'y is it is taken net by the employer deceased, Seo, the mnship of aw Saba! the worker and ermployer do not amse. [rt fo customer arid the ser ee deceased. So, the 4 ~ c or =
i =, ea S = "
yom, = oy Pies VOR. Datar is accepted.
5. Learned advotate fer. may tre permitted to allowed.
compensation. The:
the emplover isso advised. ¥