{"id":170114,"date":"2009-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-07T14:35:49","modified_gmt":"2017-02-07T09:05:49","slug":"the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Divisional Controller vs Vittalrao on 23 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Divisional Controller vs Vittalrao on 23 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Anand Byrareddy<\/div>\n
I\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 23m DAY OF NOVELMBER 2009\n\nBEFORE:\n\nTHE HON'BL.E MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRV_:ARE.CB*,:):A;f7'. \n\nMISCELLANEOKES FIRST APPEA__LQ'IQ.1()95'7'(\u00a7E;2O\"\u20aci8\"(.M}_@;)\u00bb \n\nALONG WITH MISCELLANEOUS FIf'.._\"_.'e'\nAge: 57 Years,' ~  '\n\n \"Tide No.1 to 4 are the\n 'Lega-i.R'ep1*e$e.r1t9.----tives of\n\"L'\u00ab1'{{\";_ V1tvta;I'--\u00abRa0.A'and ail are resident of\n\nAgrafiara E'xte_nf\u20aci(m,\nBan\u00e9wa1'z1' TGWI1,\n\n_ 'r_.ArsikeI'~e Taluk.\nV' V   District.\n'.I~'i.1:1_;5?'3 112.  RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
  Shri\ufb01ayzlnanda.S.Pati1. Advocate for Resp0ndem;.N0._i to 4)<\/p>\n
.\u00bb. .. .. ..\n<\/p>\n
\u00bb -:~ 3:\u00bb –1< -:4<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\nThis Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
\n173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgement and
\naward dated: 2E.8.2008 passed in lVIVC.No.5\/2.006 on tiie, file of
\nthe Civil Judge (Senior Division) and ACJM and Motoi*.Az:\u00a2’_iwdents
\nClaims Tribunal, At’sil<ere, Awarding a c()mpe'iA1s.a'1tior1_l"..of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,85,()()O\/– with interest at  pa. from the date– Oftiil. '<\/p>\n
payment.\n<\/p>\n
_IN MFA caoss OBJECTION NO. 125 of  ” in A<\/p>\n
BETWEEN :\n<\/p>\n
Vittalrao,
\nSon of Late Ganeshrao, ‘  . .\n<\/p>\n
dead by legal representatix\/eis_t” ‘<\/p>\n
l. S2ithya1i’:ti21y2i11a .l:RA:;1t),< _ ii   __
\nSon of Late VI'E1:_:ili":\u00ab1p0,p_ _ " '
\nAge: 38 Years-:,V  ' <\/p>\n
V ' Son oiI7Late~X\/ittalrao,<\/p>\n
3. L,ol<e.stl-"i,~  '
\nSoapof. Late Vittalrao,<\/p>\n
 pp Age:-3.3' Years,<\/p>\n
ii . \u00e9lll\ufb01etravztthi,<\/p>\n
 Wife of Late Vittal Rao.\n<\/p>\n
” Age: 58 Years.\n<\/p>\n
5 The Respondent No.1. to 4 are the<\/span><\/p>\n
Legal Representatives of<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
Late Vittal Rao and all are resident of
\nAgrzihara Extension,<\/p>\n
Banavara Town.\n<\/p>\n
Arsikere Taluk.\n<\/p>\n
Hassan District. 7<\/p>\n
Pin: 573 1 12. V il;\u00ab.,,  <\/p>\n
(By Shri.Dayananda.S.Patil, Advcae\u00e9te for-C Ce:;5ssA.obj\u00e9;4r5is}<\/p>\n
AND:\n<\/p>\n
1. .l\\\/Iallappa _ __   _
\nSon
\nDrivenl3d\u00a71ge.l?\u00a7lc>.9i1%85;”-K.’ A  <\/p>\n
KSE’..TC_,–\n<\/p>\n
Claikk:.m1:1g\u00e91i0i’e’Distrie_t}-\n<\/p>\n
2. The ijmsitmgrr Cont.ro.llei*i
\nKsarc.\n<\/p>\n
.  – A Ch ilCkmag’*a.1Aur Divii\u00e9iiion,<\/p>\n
‘ _Chicl:maga.lti’i’,._<\/p>\n
 l(‘Qwrie.,r”ofi’B{I:;_No.\n<\/p>\n
“K\/x\u00bb.09 r’\u00ab’.23;0 …RESPONDEN’TS<\/p>\n
  iV_(By  Advocate)
\n  ii  Misee.llaneous First Appeal Cross Objection is filed
\n ‘u.nde1f..–‘Or<ie1' XU Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure, .1908
\nagg1in.st the judgement and award dated 2.1.8.2008 pa$sed in
\nC   ..MVC.No.5\/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division)<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
5<\/span>
\nand ACJM and l\\\/Iotor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Arsikere, partly
\nallowing the claim petition for cornpensation and, seeking
\nenhancement of compensation. ”\n<\/p>\n
Miscellaneous First Appeal and MFA.Cross-,Ob:iet’_t_ion
\ncoming on for admission this day, the Co’t:rt_:*dei’ive’redthe <\/p>\n
following: —\n<\/p>\n
gunomnnrd<\/p>\n
Heard the Counsel  appellarrt\ufb02as well as the<\/p>\n
iespondertts, who have filed Crossf(J:b_ie’crt’ions–. _<\/p>\n
 The  are that the respondents herein are<\/p>\n
the legal regqresvenitiatii\/es” olfthe deceased who was iriiured while<\/p>\n
 altg\u00bbli-t,ingii’i?a’om a”‘ous___i)elo1iging to the appellant as a result of the<\/p>\n
 ‘inj’uries–v._Vhei:was.._hospital.ised for .13 days and is said to have<\/p>\n
i~et:ei’ved trej_21tinent. thereafter and had filed a claim for<\/p>\n
<._cornpe"nsation on the basis of injuries. During the pendency of<\/p>\n
i"ithe_ lp'et_iti()t.i  on 20.7'.20{)7, that is after a period of two years<\/p>\n
 .. ._a__tid one month from the date of the accident, he is said to have<\/p>\n
died. There was medical evidence tendered to contend that the<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
(3
\ndeceased had died as a result of the injuries that he had suffered at<\/p>\n
the accident. The Tribunal having accepted the same an_d>having<\/p>\n
granted compensation in favour of the legal f6pl’E3St*3Y1’ft1ti’&’.\u00a7iSitif the<\/p>\n
respondent herein in a total sum of Rs.2,85,00_9:’+*,\u00bb  of <\/p>\n
dependency computed at Rs.l,22,(i’Q()\/-gtthedappeliant:ie:s__Eiefore i<\/p>\n
this court challenging the saine.\n<\/p>\n
3. While it is primarily co_n_tend_e’d_j_jthat.itnojughviihe deceased<\/p>\n
had suffered injuries as  ivtheiicrgiidient, he was treated<\/p>\n
and was well onthe:’wayto~–:iecovery and therefore, there was no<\/p>\n
nexus betwe_eiri,Vthe .injur’ies’_.’t’and the death that had occurred two<\/p>\n
 yearn:-hand one m”onth___after the accident. The medical evidence is<\/p>\n
 ‘without._re~ference to any record and is a mere opinion expressed<\/p>\n
by the Meidiicaii Practitioner and therefore, there  no basis to<\/p>\n
V._hold that’:. the major sons and the widow. who were the legal<\/p>\n
 _rc.pi”e.sentatives of the deceased were entitled to any compensation<\/p>\n
 . __tolwa1’ds loss of dependency. The Tribunal was in total error in<\/p>\n
proceeding to accept the contention that the death had occurred<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
during the pendency of the claim petition, on accot.tt1t_4iit>f the<\/p>\n
injuries that the deceased had suffered and theret”oreA,ll ‘weiie<\/p>\n
entitled to loss of dependency. Th_e~…Counselllifoi-‘.fthe”appellant_ <\/p>\n
would take this court through the t’et:or:d’_’it”o de’m_o’1;stratei_i:thati–the
\nevidence tendered by the Med_i(:a.%l Pract_itioti.e”t1 t’r–svll”I?Wl–2 was
\nhollow and that there was.__I’10 SI:iI5l}i>titf.1\u00e9in\u00a7\u00a7”tt1.iate1’ial”for’the Tribunal<\/p>\n
to have granted the co1ttpensation*.”i <\/p>\n
4.  -.fo1*–..t.he’respondents would resist the
\nappeal:7attd._ woVuld.st1,h1n_ilt..he had suffered head injuries and the<\/p>\n
nature of i’nj_4u1’ies were such that the death having occurred after<\/p>\n
 two’-lyeaita and””ot1e____rno11th after the accident was not an<\/p>\n
  :l”T_he Medical Practitioner who had, in fact, treated<\/p>\n
the dleceaseidj_tuE1d also conducted post–mo1tem was examined and<\/p>\n
 it was “his’:.opinion that the death was at direct result of the accident<\/p>\n
 the injuries. There was no better evidence that can be<\/p>\n
  .. __pi’oduced in support of the claim. The fact that there was an<\/p>\n
interval between the acciderngnd the death is no ground to negate<\/p>\n
8<\/span>
\nthe claim when the same is supported by medical evidence. On<\/p>\n
the other hand, the respondents are entitled 1oi:i”e.l1’hai1.c.ed<\/p>\n
compensation  several conventional heads ‘7h__ave*-.notl ‘been’<\/p>\n
considered by the Tribunal. The colitenLio_1i*\u00ab.tha:t.th’e,1najor sorts it<\/p>\n
were not entitled for co1_npensati,on is besides the.-lfmeintl’ They are<\/p>\n
arreligned as legal representativesoflthe dece*a.se’d’\u00a2lai.nn2111t and the
\nwidow of the decease’d.n–2irrial s’ca1’e= and therefore, would<\/p>\n
seek enhanced. iieation.\n<\/p>\n
5.iKOn_these ltiiralliconitelnt~i()ns and on a close examination of<\/p>\n
the record,  1~3.edicaI_ helridence tendered to contend that the<\/p>\n
T”‘-deaithlilc\ufb01tthe’..dece-asedllhas occurred as a result of the injuries<\/p>\n
the-..\u00abacci.denE cannot be drsbelieved. The strong<\/p>\n
sL1b_n1.issi.t’jiis-on behalf of’ the Counsel for the appellant to the<\/p>\n
.3centrar’yV”a_re not tenable. Hence, the appeal does not merit
\n.  consideration. H()weVe1′, insofar  the Cross Objections are<\/p>\n
 “concerned, since the deceased was aged 65 as on the date of the<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
accident, the Cross–objectors himself has indicated the age of the<\/p>\n
deceased  55 in the cause title. Hence, it cannot be zicc~e’pt_.ed.,4that<\/p>\n
the deceased was aged 65 and on that basis, tli.e.”witd.o”v{?”iofl’l_”the<\/p>\n
deceased was certainly entitled to”co1’npe_nsati.orill” i1e”ifurther T.<\/p>\n
assertion of the Counsel for the appellant th21t’post\u00e9ni(irtein<\/p>\n
report indicated the age  65l”e.ari’not be’~co’rtcilusilV:e since the
\nrespondent himself has A._re’c0rd.ed :the*in’peris21tiori”g1’anted is adequate insofar as<\/p>\n
the widow  ct)rir;ei’n\u00a2d.i ..\n<\/p>\n
  appeal”‘;ts.._.Wieil as the Cross-objections stand dismissed.<\/p>\n
 ‘”l7iie deposit be released in favour of the claimant-<\/p>\n
Sd\/.;\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n
Tl V<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Divisional Controller vs Vittalrao on 23 November, 2009 Author: Anand Byrareddy I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 23m DAY OF NOVELMBER 2009 BEFORE: THE HON’BL.E MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRV_:ARE.CB*,:):A;f7′. MISCELLANEOKES FIRST APPEA__LQ’IQ.1()95’7′(\u00a7E;2O”\u20aci8″(.M}_@;)\u00bb ALONG WITH MISCELLANEOUS FIf’.._”_.’e’ Age: 57 Years,’ ~ ‘ “Tide No.1 to 4 […]<\/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-170114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Divisional Controller vs Vittalrao on 23 November, 2009 - 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\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Divisional Controller vs Vittalrao on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-07T09:05:49+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Divisional Controller vs Vittalrao on 23 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-07T09:05:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1223,\"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\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009\",\"name\":\"The Divisional Controller vs Vittalrao on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-07T09:05:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Divisional Controller vs Vittalrao on 23 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"The Divisional Controller vs Vittalrao on 23 November, 2009 - 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\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Divisional Controller vs Vittalrao on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-07T09:05:49+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Divisional Controller vs Vittalrao on 23 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-07T09:05:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009"},"wordCount":1223,"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\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009","name":"The Divisional Controller vs Vittalrao on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-07T09:05:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-vittalrao-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Divisional Controller vs Vittalrao on 23 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/170114","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=170114"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170114\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170114"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170114"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}