{"id":176268,"date":"2010-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010"},"modified":"2015-03-28T06:47:33","modified_gmt":"2015-03-28T01:17:33","slug":"smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt Vani @ Suvarna Pandit vs The Managing Director M\/S … on 29 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt Vani @ Suvarna Pandit vs The Managing Director M\/S … on 29 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: N.K.Patil And H.S.Kempanna<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN\n\nDATED THIS THE 29TH DAY 01? SEPTEMBER. \n\n:PRESENT:\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUsTt91; >_1\\T.K.lE'}\\'i'\ufb01_f,~'t:   \u00ab\nAND , . u  \" .\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUST'IQE    ll\nM.F.A. No.  \nBetween:   'A l   \n1. Smt. Vani @ StzvarnaAPar?1_dit VA   \nW\/ o. Late Satish'._G.Ifandit'3.: _ V _  \nAged about       V = \n\n2. Master . V  \u00ab_ \nS \/ 0. ,Late.ASa_tis1'i;:{}.._ Pandit, \"-\n\nAgecfl abot_\u00a3t'S_.yea3fs.  \n\n3. Sraja\ufb01a \"\n\nD \/ o. Late__Satish,  ; \nAged about  years.  \n\n Appeilan't-- No. 2 &\"3'a1'e minors,\n. ' =Rep1.'_eseutedVby their mother as\n VNate1vro._l lG\u00e91ard.ian.\nAll are residing at Heera Bagh\nClompvouud,\n Barmanje Post,\nas Udupi'.\n\nV. . . . Appellants\n\nV\"   {fsy Sri. Dayananc1.S. P til' Advocate)\n\nax \u20ac,_;a\u00a73\n\n\n\nAnd:\n\n1. The Managing Director\n\nM \/ s. Thriveni Earth Movers\n\nPvt, Ltd..\n\nSea Bird Project Area,\n\nArgha,  ,\nKarwar,  \nU.K. District.\n\n2. United Endia insurance Co..*Ltd_..\nBy its Branch Manager, ' \nKarwar Branch,\nUttara Kannada District; 1\n\nit    .,  .~ Respondents<\/pre>\n
(By sn. O.Mahe.si’1:.:Advocate\u00bb i’oi~ <\/p>\n
Notice to R1 ‘d3ipsp\u00a7r1sedvV\u00a3IitI1_if\/0’_date’dV’l3’f08\/2009}<\/p>\n
     p
\n is”\ufb01_1e_d”–U;5s. 1’73.{.l}’of MV Act against the
\nJudgment and\ufb01wardoda-ted.f_ 12\/05\/2005 passed in MVC No.
\n1 193\/2G-O3′ on the?”-file\u00bba,ofa.etl*1el District Judge and Member
\nMACT, *Udupi,’ allowing the claim petition for
\ncompensation and Vseercingp enhancement of compensation.<\/p>\n
  coming on for Hearing this day,<\/p>\n
 ” “N.K;vtPA’rIL J, delivered the following:<\/p>\n
:JUDG MENT:\n<\/p>\n
it ‘  l  filed by the appellants is directed against<\/p>\n
 impugned judgment and award dated 12\/05\/2005<\/p>\n
A ~TpaA,s\u00e9\u00e9a_. in MVC No. 1193\/2003 by the District Judge and<\/p>\n
 Motor Ac%nts Claims Tribunal, Udupi,<\/p>\n
,2.’<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as ‘ Tribunal’ for short)_,___ for<\/p>\n
enhancement of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Tribunal by its judgment and  ~<\/p>\n
determined the Compensation of;   32,4\u00bb1′;9E}i)’\/+’V”‘under.V4 it”<\/p>\n
different heads and awarded a sum{erajczszadaao\/\u00bb;larafter;<\/p>\n
deducting ?1,89,560\/– awarded~~…t0  by <\/p>\n
Commissioner of W0rkrnen’s gC.oVri1pensatior1,– rwitghiinterest
\nat 8% per annum frorn i–ol.”.  till realisation
\nwith cost against’*t_1f1e clairn   for a sum of
\n34,00,000\/-,___     it iofnithe deceased Sri.<\/p>\n
3:.\u00a5.__In  case are:\n<\/p>\n
The appellantl  wife and appellant Nos. 2<\/span><\/p>\n
and  are the  children of the deceased Sri. Satish G.<\/p>\n
   “they  filed a claim petition before the<\/p>\n
1 section 163-A of M.V. Act, claiming<\/p>\n
it  con1pens_at’iQn?olf ?4,o0,o0o\/–, on account of the death of the<\/p>\n
 ‘deceasedin the road traffic accident that occurred on<\/p>\n
i   at about 9.30 a.n’1., due to the rash and negligent<\/p>\n
 of the driver of the Ternpo 407 bearing<\/p>\n
,-“X hww\ufb01wmww\ufb01wmd\ufb01<\/p>\n
N o.KA.30.5699 near Sea Bird Area, Argha, Karavara. It is the<\/p>\n
further ease of the appellants that, the deceased uzaaaged<\/p>\n
about 38 years, hale and healthy, working as  ~<\/p>\n
L 81 T Company, High Chip Bird Jointl\/e’nturr3,V  ” ”<\/p>\n
earning ?’3,000\/– per month and 1ookin:g’a.tter’\u00bbth’e  <\/p>\n
the family and due to his unt’ii:1e_iy death the\u00a7f”st1.’i’:1′.eHred’3 lot
\nas they have lost the earninghieoiber of The
\nsaid Claim petition had    before the
\nTribunal. The Tribtgnal,  the oral
\nand documentairyi     ‘ ‘raaterial available
\non \ufb01ie, has   petition in part,
\ndetermined  of ?2,41,900\/- under<\/p>\n
different ‘heads ‘a’nVd””.awar–die’d’ a sum of $2,340\/-. after<\/p>\n
 deducgtiiag  awarded to the appeliants by<\/p>\n
 the._,ConZ1rnis’sioner of Workmerfs Compensation, with<\/p>\n
:ree14ee,t “a\u00a3””_~vs\u00e9xeVfjper annurn from the date of petition till<\/p>\n
V _ realisation.’ ‘Not being satisfied with the compensation<\/p>\n
 the Tribunal, the appellants have presented<\/p>\n
— [j_-thisiiailipeal, for enhancement of compensation.<\/p>\n
ff” mM
\n;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the appellants and learned counsel for <\/p>\n
respondent~Insurance Company.\n<\/p>\n
5. The learned counsel appe’ari–ng for <\/p>\n
Sri. O. Mahesh, at the outset  that_A.th,e\u00ab.<\/p>\n
petition filed by the appellants”‘iindehr’sectio’nlVl”i:\u00e93\u00a5A of it<\/p>\n
the M.V. Act, is not m’aintaii1’able’iaridzit islvliable to be
\nrejected at threshold on  appellants
\nherein have    under the
\nWorkrnen’s  there is a total bar to
\n not referred in the
\nsaid petitioii received the compensation<\/p>\n
under-the \\?l7orl:I’nen’s”-Cornpensation Act. Therefore, he<\/p>\n
. lllsiibniltted that entertaining this appeal and enhancing<\/p>\n
lt–hle..quia.ntu.n1 of compensation does not arise.<\/p>\n
 against this, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
ll.'”””–.nappellants has supported the impugned. judgment and<\/p>\n
  passed by the Tribunal. Further he submitted<\/p>\n
  -that, before the Tribunal the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants has admitted that they have received<\/p>\n
compensation under the Workmerfs Compensatiazt<\/p>\n
and contended that the petition \ufb01led under  .<\/p>\n
A of M.V. Act, is maintainable. si11ce.the cot4npfensatior1._V <\/p>\n
under the W.C. Act was paid    <\/p>\n
being any claim made by  Fuhftheighe stibtriitted ” it<\/p>\n
that this specific contentio:1″”o.f’Vc_:’the..insn1’ert has been
\nduly considered by reliance on the
\njudgment of  of Dee-pa}
\nGirishbhai    India Insurance
\nCo..    and the decision of
\nthe    and Haryana High Court<\/p>\n
in the case” of ~Yas1A1*.PV\u00e9il’V Sharma Vs. Giridhari L31 and<\/p>\n
. d  ‘tot\ufb01ees fcapijrted  ACJ 1434 wherein, it is held that,<\/p>\n
1  “i:’_vs.rit11oi2.t triakitig a claim, the claimant is given any amount<\/p>\n
under  Compensation Act, there is nothing in<\/p>\n
 Sectio11”::i67 which  diserititle him from preferring a<\/p>\n
 under Motor Vehicle Act’-‘I.;_ Therefore, he subrnitted<\/p>\n
Ln<\/p>\n
Z<\/p>\n
that the submission made by the learned counsel for___ the<\/p>\n
Insurer is liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
7. in the light of the above submissions:.:l.mad\u00e9:”’ .<\/p>\n
learned counsel for both the parties_ and”a’fter. cz’itica1.c,v <\/p>\n
evaluation of the material available, <\/p>\n
impugned judgement and awardagtassed.
\nemerges that, in fact, the aboveiglibiriission l.o-fivlthelfilearned
\ncounsel for the Insurer  been  by  Punjab
\nand Haryana High I Shanna
\nvs.  ‘in*i2003 ACJ 1434,
\nand at paras.     Bar of section 167 is
\nonly   to make claim either
\nunder l\\\/Ilotolr’Vlehic’les:’Act.:go’r\u00ablWorkmen’s Compensation Act:<\/p>\n
if without making  hclailmftlhe claimant is given any amount<\/p>\n
it I “und’erC’W..0rkmen’s Comlplensation Act, there is nothing in<\/p>\n
\ufb01etgtion  would disentitle him from preferring a<\/p>\n
claiqillundercillwotor Vehicles Act.” Further, it could be seen<\/p>\n
‘7fI’O1″I1 theliirecords that, except making submission, learned<\/p>\n
“:i.coulns*el for the Insurer has not placed any authenticated<\/p>\n
  documents to show that cl\/jajmants herein have \ufb01led a claim<\/p>\n
.\u00ab\u00bb_\u00bb_M__M_W_c_,,<\/p>\n
petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and this<\/p>\n
fact has been specifically observed by the Tribunal’<\/p>\n
judgment and award. Therefore, we are of the__-r’onside:red”v…_ ‘ .<\/p>\n
View that the Tribunal has rightly rejected  , <\/p>\n
taken by the Insurer. In View of  law  <\/p>\n
Apex Court and Punjab and i’IV_&aryana’-High <\/p>\n
supra), there is no bar for thel”-a:ppVellant’s..V:to  claim
\npetition under section M;;_’tfV;.  theretore, we
\nare of the considered vieiir…tl4:.3:’~  i’s”vno’:Visgju1hstance in the
\nsubmission   the Insurer and
\nthe same    accordingly, it is
\nr6J”l:cted;.: tttt H l  it it  V\n<\/p>\n
8. has erred in assessing<\/p>\n
the income ‘of..,i;Aheh”‘ deceased at $1,800\/– per month for<\/p>\n
 l  loss of detiendency and the same is on lower side<\/p>\n
‘vdan:d\u00bb.thei*ei’o.re,lit-needs to be modified. It is the case of the<\/p>\n
  ap1:ie~Elants’  the deceased was aged about 38 years,<\/p>\n
 Supervisor at L 8: T Company, High Chip<\/p>\n
 a.”Sea’\u00bb-Bird Joint Venture, Karavara and earning ?3,000\/–<\/p>\n
  per month. Hating regard to the age, occupation and since<\/p>\n
the accident was occurred in the year 2002, we re–as_sess<\/p>\n
the income of the deceased at ?3,000\/- per mont_h’.–l<\/p>\n
per Schedule\u00bb II to Section 163–A of  ”<\/p>\n
income of the deceased is taken at ‘?3-,O0O7:\/– nerlfr\u00e9norith, <\/p>\n
the appellants are entitled’ for <\/p>\n
?’5,40,000\/– towards loss of’
\naged about 38 years. O*ut of  A\/3r{1\u00ab i\u00a7.,.&(;duCted
\ntowards the personal   the net
\namount   of which, if
\n?1,89,560\/     “Commissioner of
\n  jiislllllvivdeducted, the net
\ncompens’atio’nV  of dependency comes to<\/p>\n
?’1,7O,{l4.()L\/–  accordingly, it is awarded.<\/p>\n
.  \\’  A:’9j–.”As” per thewsaid schedule, the appellants are<\/p>\n
 ”  of ?5,000\/- towards loss of<\/p>\n
l  cons’o.rtinvrr;,.vidalsurn of $2,500\/- towards loss of estate<\/p>\n
 a’11.d_a  of \u20ac2,000\/– towards funeral expenses and<\/p>\n
 .’acco1’d’\u00abing1y. it is awarded. In all, the appellants are<\/p>\n
it .:’_4″‘e11’titled for a compensation of Rs.1,”\/9,940\/– with<\/p>\n
arm<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
 \ufb01e\/*3’ corn;-cted v\/0.\n<\/p>\n
interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its<\/p>\n
realisation.\n<\/p>\n
10. For the forgoing reasons, the  .\n<\/p>\n
appellants is allowed in part and the  ti”
\nand award passed by the Tribunal  l”(:’-‘f’:’
\nhereby modified, awarding the’co_ignper1sation  .
\nunih_interest at 696 ;\u00bba.,1ionile{\u00a2 date or peiiion t\ufb02iits
\nrealisation.  Ah K t R A H<\/p>\n
The Insurer is dire::t.eiti~.Vtov’V_depo’s’it’   compensation<\/p>\n
H after. de-;iu<:ti;ig_ brie-V_ ameent deposited by it.
\nwith interest,_;{t;}'itlif;;3i'a "of  from the date of
\nreceipt of a   'award.\n<\/p>\n
  oi’ ?1,79,940\/-, a sum of<\/p>\n
?’50,O0O\/A?   shall be kept in Fixed
\nDepositing   or Scheduled Bank in the name<\/p>\n
 it ‘of .  .appellantAvNos.2 and 3 till they attain majority.
\n is entitled to withdraw the interest<\/p>\n
aocrueci on  their welfare.\n<\/p>\n
“A sum’ of ?’50,000\/- with proportionate interest shall<\/p>\n
 iaieptvvin Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant No.1 in<\/p>\n
;\n<\/p>\n
\u00a7ttl$’li*2D10o g “””””””\n<\/p>\n
any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of five years<\/p>\n
renewable for another five years with liberty to <\/p>\n
withdraw the interest accrued on it periodically.<\/p>\n
The remaining sum of ?’29.94(_)_y\/..–. with; l”<\/p>\n
interest shall be released in favouf\ufb01of  at3p\u20aclllE:l1;.ti<\/p>\n
immediately, on deposit by the_V:I’1a,surer. _ V
\nOf\ufb01ce is directed to draw.-tlievaward, laccordihgly.<\/p>\n
Sd\/-<\/p>\n
\nIudge\n\n iiii        sa\/~..:\n           Iudcxe\n\ntsn*\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt Vani @ Suvarna Pandit vs The Managing Director M\/S … on 29 September, 2010 Author: N.K.Patil And H.S.Kempanna IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY 01? SEPTEMBER. :PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR.JUsTt91; >_1\\T.K.lE’}\\’i’\ufb01_f,~’t: \u00ab AND , . u ” . THE HON’BLE MR.JUST’IQE ll M.F.A. No. […]<\/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-176268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Vani @ Suvarna Pandit vs The Managing Director M\/S ... on 29 September, 2010 - 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\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Vani @ Suvarna Pandit vs The Managing Director M\/S ... on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-28T01:17:33+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Vani @ Suvarna Pandit vs The Managing Director M\\\/S … on 29 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-28T01:17:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1475,\"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\\\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt Vani @ Suvarna Pandit vs The Managing Director M\\\/S ... on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-28T01:17:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Vani @ Suvarna Pandit vs The Managing Director M\\\/S … on 29 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt Vani @ Suvarna Pandit vs The Managing Director M\/S ... on 29 September, 2010 - 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\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Vani @ Suvarna Pandit vs The Managing Director M\/S ... on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-28T01:17:33+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Vani @ Suvarna Pandit vs The Managing Director M\/S … on 29 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-28T01:17:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010"},"wordCount":1475,"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\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010","name":"Smt Vani @ Suvarna Pandit vs The Managing Director M\/S ... on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-28T01:17:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-vani-suvarna-pandit-vs-the-managing-director-ms-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Vani @ Suvarna Pandit vs The Managing Director M\/S … on 29 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/176268","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=176268"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176268\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}