{"id":181616,"date":"2010-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-01T14:00:11","modified_gmt":"2018-05-01T08:30:11","slug":"the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Branch Manager New India … vs Nagaraj Subraya Shetty on 15 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Branch Manager New India … vs Nagaraj Subraya Shetty on 15 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: H.G.Ramesh And K.N.Keshavanarayana<\/div>\n
 [BY  N;R_;P\u00a7;:;,UR,'gxDv)\n\nMFA NQ4847\/2003\nC\/W MFA CROB 19\/2004\n1 I :\nIN THE I~II(.':H CLJLERT 0%' Ix\".ARNATA1{A\ncnewrr E3ENC}~I AT D H ARWAD\nI.)A\"\u00a7'I.-ID 'r1~--us '1?-1.1+: xsw DAY 01: SEPTEMBER 2010\nPRESENT\nTHIE: H()N'BLE %\\z'1R.\\.JU$\"\u00a7.'\u00a7CI\"; H.<'3.RAMEsH$...... j  ~  \nAND\n\nTHE I~I('I)N"1E3LE3 MRJUSTICE K.N.:KE:'sHAvANA12AYAr;:A  \n\nM.F.A.N('). 4847\/201033 \nM.F.A. CROBV ".1~9\/2004 V\n\nIN M.F.A. NO.4847\/ 2003\nBETWEEN:\n\nTHE BRANCH MANAGER   \n\nTHE NEW %_I_;\\Ir3'1A Ass,1gRAN'c$ '<:c,.. LTD \n\nBRAN(3J'{ c)F1\u00ab'-1.95; AT '1\u00a7Is'H.ATI<AE, \n\nREP. E$Yi1TS DEP1;1T-Y MEANA<._';E._R -- I\n\nREG-1ONA_L OI*'F'if_2_E,~N(.).2~3, 'L;r.N1'-Ty BUILDING ANNEXE\nMISSI(")N RQAL), I3A.N<:.AL}e.E\u00e9560 0:27\n\n APPELLANT\n\n7-3.  QE.ASS}4..v4f;\u20ac'},N,=XV(\u00a7..A'Rr\\.J SUBRAYA Sl~{E'i\"1\"Y\n\n AG\u00a7:D'[j3o_\u00a5y'EA\u00a72s\n FA'.I'I~--I 31:53 NAME NGT KNOWN\n\" oec; I-5U5jj-BINESS, R\/U MUGWA\nF'--{()NA\\\/AR TALUK\n\n5.' *2  V  .VENI\\'A\"\u00a7'ARAR-'IAN v1\u00a7:NK.ATA\u00a7eAMAN HEGDE\n\n-7()WN??IR 013 HEZRCJ HONDA KA\u00ab3(}\/J\/1.46\nMx\"\\J{E)f?. F9\u00a5'\\'I'I~IE\u00a733\"S NANIEJ \u00a7.\\KY{' l{N(.'\")WI\\E\nR\/() KLEI,-I<L()f'). E\\-A'1LJ('.':WA. I~i(I)NNA\\-("AR TALUK\n\n\n\nMFA NO4847\/2003\nC\/W MFA CROB 19\/2004\n\n...RESP(,)I\\EDENTS\n\n[BY SR1. .J.S.SHE'I'T'{, ADV' P'(.f)R R1\nR2 SE}?VI?3D)\n\n11-119 APPEAL ES FILED UNDER SEJC'I'i(,)N 173(1.}vw.D_R_M.V\nACT A(}A}I\\ES'I' "rm: JUI"}(}E\\\/EEZNT AND AWARD DATED 19.4-__20:a-.\nPASSED EN \u00a7\\\u00ab'I\\-"C No.91?\/200: ON THE FILE) ()2?fTH'Ef_'C_I\\7Iii-, \nJUDGE} (sR.DN.) 8;. NIEZMBER, A\u00a7}II)L. MACT, RDNNAVAR,ApA'RT1.Y"9 '\nALLOWING THE CLAIM PETI'E'ION FOR cMP\u00a7.'.Ns'AT1D.N AND'\n\nIN M.F.A. CROB. 19[2004\n\nBETWEEN:\nSHRI. NAGARAJ SUBRAY SHETTY \n\nAGE; 30 YEARS, R\/O MUGWA _ _  \nHDNNAVAR TALUK, D1$TR__1'c3T: N_<)RTHT*-KARA.RA\n\n\u00b0  .._.;.\u00a2VR.%\u00a7'SS'_'\u00a3)BJECTDR\n\n(BY SRI.J.S.SHETTE'i, ADV).-~~  . \n\n1. THE ._8RANC}\u00a7 \u00a7\\rI\u00ab.AE*?Ai3sE;R "\nTHE NEW' .:ND1A A.SSDRANcE co. LTD\n_ B.RAN<:}'~a c;)Rrv1c:B: AT RHATKAL\n.. .;RER BY 1'Ts=.DERuT'Y MANAGER\n "'R}3T.NAL (')FF'\"I'(;\"E, N023, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE,\n\n'A  M1'ss:\u00a7w~.._RAD, BA\u00a7\\e'GALORE--56O 027\n\n5;} '\n\n . '(~}3Y\u00bb--;s.R1.N.12. I\\'.UPPE1LU\u00a7\u20ac. ADV FDR RE]\n\n \u00e9vE_r$RAssEDV~.IVN._.IvIs\\{c\nN091?\/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE}.._(_SR.DNf.~} '3;\nMEMBER ADDL. MACT, HONNAVAR, PARTLY AL.I;owI:\\%'o----.\nCLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AI-ID' SEEKING \nENHANCEMENT oR COMPENSATION.   . \n\nTRIS APPEAL AND cRoss O84:EC\"ffOII\u00bb\u00a7S'CC\u00e9I\\\/I'H\\IG--OE\nRINAL HEARING THIS DAY, 2x:,I~I.ResHAv.AI\\sARAyAI<z~IA.J.--,.\nDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: _    " '   \n\nThis appeal by   is directed\nagainst the  ;Lahaas%as:I_I.f.Taatsd 19.4.2003\npassed in the file of the Civil\n  MACT, Honnavar.\nUpon s'e\u00abru\\'V'zi'ceV  appeal, respondent No.1<\/pre>\n
hereitmwho \\aras”t}fIe hiaimant IDBAQFE the ribunal Tiled<\/p>\n
‘”eroVs’s.oi:$j’ectis.on seeking enhancement of compensation.<\/p>\n
 claimant initially filed claim petition<\/p>\n
  “..under”Seetion 166 of MV Act, which was later converted<\/p>\n
  “:I’ A1fIvto_ }; peti.ti<m under Section 163~A MV Act seeking<\/p>\n
 _co?rnpensation fox." the personal injuries sustained by<\/p>\n
if-'\u00bb?L=<\/p>\n
_.\u00bbr \/\/-'<\/p>\n
\/'<\/p>\n
QR<\/p>\n
MFA NC).4847\/2003
\nC\/W MFA CROB 19\/2004
\n2 4 :\n<\/p>\n
him in the motor vehicie accident that OCCL1f1’C:’d on
\n13.11.1999. According to the clairnarit, on the 111 fated
\nday, he and the ow.=:1er of the Hero Hortda
\nbearing registration No.E\u00a7A–30\/$146 were
\ntowards Karwar and when they;\n<\/p>\n
owner of the Motorcycle, who Vtias
\nMotorcycle requested the 1’ic;1vei.:V1th{\u00a7owgehiicle * 9′
\nfurther and accordingiiy, theVAic1af1t1ai1_t riveting the
\nMotorcycle. When thej~=’a_t about 1030
\nam. on seeing’ .__an iifrom opposite
\n  apprehending that the
\ntruck ihit claimantvrider took the<\/p>\n
Motor_cycIei”to”theextrierhe left side to avoid possibie<\/p>\n
 ;_accii.dent.”””‘*Gh account of this, he could not<\/p>\n
 _co:fii_t”r”o1:V’th’e\u00bb.’M.ot’orcycIe as a result felt down on the road<\/p>\n
ar1’~:1__1sust’a1ir\u00a7:ec1 injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to<\/p>\n
*.,Govt. “Ho1~s;:>ita1, Kumta from where he was shifted to<\/p>\n
 Hospitat, t\\\/ianipal. Therefore, he claimed<\/p>\n
H\u00a7_55,()O,O0O\/– as compensatiori under different heads.<\/p>\n
\/\u00a7<\/p>\n
g.\n<\/p>\n
,, <\/p>\n
MFA N().484’7\/2003
\nC\/W MFA CROB 19\/2004
\n: 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
The claim petition came to be filed against. the
\ninsurance company and owner of the l\\\/lotorcvycle.
\nOwner of the i\\\/iotorcycle did not contest the
\nwhile the lnsurance Company contested
\ninter alia contending that the ciaizn
\nSection l.63–A is not maintainable
\ntook place ciue to the rasiiianci “the ” V
\nclaimant himself, theijefore,VAeheiA”‘car1–not  claim
\npetition under  against the
\nowner of the4_:l\\\/i.otor:cj?c:ie::: Company.
\nlnsurer”f’i\ufb01ttli;eirl   provision of Section
\nl63–A    only by persons having<\/p>\n
annual income of-.leis_si’than 3″ 40,000\/– and since the<\/p>\n
inpthelliclairri petition has contended that his<\/p>\n
 is 3″ 8,000\/3, the claim petition is not<\/p>\n
niai__1fitainabie’iuncler Section l63wA of MV Act. The<\/p>\n
 “..Tribunai:{i~r)11 the basis of pleadings of the parties framed<\/p>\n
‘  i.”i’U’il_O’slQ’l11giSSLZE3S. <\/p>\n
MFA NO.4847\/2003
\nC\/W MFA CROB 19\/2004
\n: 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on\n<\/p>\n
13.} L199′) at about 30.30 am. at Miriam he
\nbeing the driver of the Motor Cycle
\n30\/J446 caused the accident
\nLinavoida\u00e9ale reasons stated. in <\/p>\n
and sustained injuries?\n<\/p>\n
ll. Whether Respondent
\nnot liable to pa}? any conil;lJer1sa.tli’oii.._Vforjthe
\nreasons stated inii’t*,\ufb02oiara iliwritten<\/p>\n
Statement?”\n<\/p>\n
iii. Whether tlf_1e’i’  entitle for<\/p>\n
cornpensatlonj.   Wljiat amount and.<\/p>\n
~ ~a,g’;_;;instfimvhloni?\n<\/p>\n
 ‘Part.\u00a7e_silleidi”-evidence. The Tribunal, on<\/p>\n
assessment ” ._of’~7ora[\u00a7 and doettmenta V evidence,<\/p>\n
\u00b0ans’were’icE issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2 in<\/p>\n
it’the_r-iiegatixfe. aking into the consideration the evidence<\/p>\n
on i”IT’\u20acCQ’1’Cl,.Vi’.:”\u00a3l;3\u20ac Tribunal quantified the compensation<\/p>\n
 ? 329,333\/\u00ab~ under different heads as<\/p>\n
MFA NCX4847\/2003
\nC\/W MFA CROB 19\/2004
\n: 7 :<\/span>
\nTowarcis pair} and suffering ? 15,000\/~
\nTowards medical expenses 3′ _l5,000\/-
\n‘i’0wards loss of earning for 3 43,333\/–
\n5.2 weel<:s
\nTowards loss of earning capacity i' 2,5_6;Q'QQ',5.w
\ndue to permanent disability ~w~~*-\u00bb-~'–'-\u00a5~- <\/p>\n
Total 2\u00b0  .\n<\/p>\n
4. The Tribunal directed ,..that the”‘e\u00a7,ifv:1le1s
\nInsurance C()TTlpa1]y are jointly llaiuci\ufb02
\npay the compensation to sithe * it
\ninsurer of the M0t_0.rcycle_…l:llte._ “d_Vepe.sit’l–lVtheil entire
\ncor\ufb02pensation amouiiltll’Va::lll1p.a. from the
\ndate of petiti0n’.’\u00abt:\u00abi”ll__ \u00abw:ll.ll\/ltglzgrieved by the
\nsaid  (.)lll’::fftl’1e:l”ll.ri”aulnal”fastening the liability 03:1
\nthe lnstlran_ce  Iaresent appeal is filed.<\/p>\n
A.  htavel-helard Sri.N.R.Kuppelur, learned<\/p>\n
llll”Colinse\ufb01agnpearing’alert the appellant and Sri.J.S.Shetty,<\/p>\n
I-l.earne’d_T’e0’L:nse1;:~ appearing for the respondent No.1-<\/p>\n
clainj a.n._t~. ‘ _ A<\/p>\n
ll’ Sri.E{uppe.lL1r, learned cotmsel appearing for<\/p>\n
 _ lnstzrartee Ccimpany contended that the claim petition<\/p>\n
:2<\/p>\n
MFA NO4847\/2003
\nC\/W MFA CROB 19\/2004
\n:8:<\/span><\/p>\n
under Sec.t.ion l63~A of }VI.\\\/.Act was not rnaintainable
\nfor the reasons that the claimant himself was riding the
\nMotorcycle at the time of alleged accident, tl”1ez'<%:I"\u00ab\u00a7f\u00a2l..\u00a7.:\u00bb_Vi:.e'
\nstepped into the shoes of owner of the
\nsuch he could not claim
\nInsurance Company. In this Fozehall",
\nplaced reliance on the }udgern~ent of  " V
\nCourt in the case of \u00a3ir1btvh,erivl\u00a7 Versus
\nUnited India Insurartc:e_.'Co.._v;itcil}1iIRlV:.2Q09 so 3055
\nand the jLtdg\u00a7m:\u00a7\u00a711.t  this Court in
\nthe casveof   Co. Ltd. Versus G.\n<\/p>\n
Sharacfa   Kar L.J. 121. He also<\/p>\n
contended that’, sVirf:ce’–.th’e”‘ annual income of the claimant<\/p>\n
‘lv”\u00abaS  trlile”‘p’etition was more than ‘3 40,000\/M,<\/p>\n
the under Section l63\u00abA of l\\\/l.V.Act was<\/p>\n
not ai n.i”.ain_.able.\n<\/p>\n
it n   Per contra, Si’i.J.S.Shett_V, learned counsel<\/p>\n
 apr\u00e9eziring for respondent. No.1 by placing reliance on<\/p>\n
l <\/p>\n
MFA NO.4847\/2003
\nC\/W MFA CROB E9\/2004
\n:9:<\/span><\/p>\n
the judgernent of Hon’%3le Supreme Court in the case of
\nDeepal Girish Bhai Sam’ & Others Vs. Uftited
\nInsurance Company Limited, Baroda reported’
\n2004 so 2107, contended that, even if
\nwas due to negligence of the appe:li:an.t;ciai.rn_anto
\nhe can still maintain a petition
\nM.V.ACt, therefore, petition..:vp:lj~nder.l’  is ‘V V
\nperfectly maintainable:   slulbrnnstslon that
\nthe above decision of by a Larger<\/p>\n
Bench has no,t~be’e_n c\u00a7:;onsid.ered”~in.Vthetiater decision of<\/p>\n
the SL:pr’eme”i:’Co\ufb01trt ‘in_’-Ningarn’naa’s ease referred to
\nsupra, Vthezieforel’t’he”‘ivaW—.,as~ laid down by the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court _in ompal.Von?i~;h”~~–ah.ai’s case should be applied.<\/p>\n
 .159 thle””‘i’ea1’ned counsel, the judgement of<\/p>\n
 p_D’ivi_sion’v.l3e.ri’eh”in G.Sharada’s case referred to supra, is<\/p>\n
 to the present case in the light of the<\/p>\n
lll”‘~.\u00ab.4l’tjudgen1ent of Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhafs<\/p>\n
   Therefore. he sought for dismissal of the appeal<\/p>\n
  filed by the Ensttrzmce Company. He further contended<\/p>\n
\/4<\/p>\n
MFA NQ4847\/2003
\nC\/W MFA CROB 19\/2004
\n: 10 :<\/span>
\nthat the Tribtmal had committed an error in adopting<\/p>\n
multiplier of l6 as the appropriate multiplier is 17.<\/p>\n
8. We have bestowed our .a’1i$’ieus
\nconsiderations to the submissions made
\ncounsel. in the light of the s1;bmi4ssic’)hlsvVl'”iafiadie,.l_l_’the_ it
\nquestions that arise for considereitiori’_’_’iiri’iitl’1e~gippyeal :7.:.<\/p>\n
i) Whether the clair–\ufb01”‘i-petitio’r1.lu.1T1:\u00a7ler’2b Selction<\/p>\n
163-A of M Actgw\u00e9s a\u00a7i’n;a1nab1’e?’r”\n<\/p>\n
ii) Whether the-1 AV el’Vair:\u00e9a1it:iV” entitled for<\/p>\n
 an e7elr1;e’\ufb01’t.ilOf corripen satiori?\n<\/p>\n
9. l’  ‘l”l1.ere.. Vis.A”rid\u00bb._\u00bbdispute that, at the time of<\/p>\n
alleged acciden_tl,”thel’eletimant himself was riding the<\/p>\n
‘L__Even according to the Case as pleaded iri<\/p>\n
ztlfl\ufb01’:-7″‘Cl’Ve1l”:T{:l””p6\u00a5i\u00a7T.i:I5I1, at the place of accident on seeing a<\/p>\n
truck  from opposite direction at a high speed,<\/p>\n
 _.ia.ppt:jeh.en\u00a2di11g that the truck may hit the MotorCycl.e, the<\/p>\n
  Claiiilraiit: took the f\\\/I’0treyele to the extreme left side of<\/p>\n
MFA NO.4847\/2003
\nC\/W MFA CROB 19\/2004
\n: 12 :<\/span><\/p>\n
10. ln Ningamma\ufb01s case referred to supra,
\n}~lon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with almost
\nidentical case and the claim having been made'”ti’n.id’er<\/p>\n
Section l63–\/1\\has.’neld thus in para, 18 85  i<\/p>\n
“IS. in the case of Oi’iein’t*a.l’_
\nCompany Ltd. v. Rajni D;’e.vi1’_A_ariid
\n(2008) 5 SCC 736, wherein one’.oft1s,
\nI-lon’ble Justice 8.13.  a
\nbeen categorically held etthiatgminl case’ “Where
\nthird party is   of the
\ninsurance compatzjy It<\/p>\n
was also  the said o’teVci’s’i’on~’that where,<\/p>\n
hoiweveif’ivieoijrij:3Ver1sAat.ion_ is claimed for the
\ndeath of theinxzzne-rVii”or..*’another passenger of
\nthe ve’niclea_ the’..con~’tract of insurance being<\/p>\n
 ilb5.:eAthe’vconti*act qua contract, the<\/p>\n
”  iiiclaini ot’at’ne claimant against the insurance<\/p>\n
 depend upon the terms
\nis V  it was held in the said decision that<\/p>\n
Secitionli l63~\u00bbA of the l\\\/IVA cannot be said to<\/p>\n
V is .at_h.a\\}e any application in respect of an accident<\/p>\n
“–..\\;vh<\u00ab:1:'ein. the owner of the motor vehicle<\/p>\n
himself is izivolve.c.l. The decision further held<\/p>\n
r=_
\n' ;\n<\/p>\n
MFA NO.-4847\/2003
\nC\/W MFA CR()B19\/2O04
\n: 23:<\/span><\/p>\n
that the question is no longer res integra. The
\n11’ab\u00e9.lit._\\’ under section ]63–A of the MVA is on<\/p>\n
the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot.—-_
\nbe both a ciaimant as also a recipient
\nrespect to claim. Therefore, the heirs
\ndeceased eouid not have maintained<\/p>\n
in terms of Section 163-A of:’thie”‘1’u’!\\_\/Ft. .I\u00abn\ufb02oiur:
\nconsidered opinion, the ratid-‘of7’.the
\ndecision is ciearly app1ic’ab.1_e to the factsv:iofjt}1eV__
\npresent case. In theiiiVi”pres_er1tiii ‘case: the
\ndeceased was notthe o’W’nie’1Vit}i.e rnotiorbike<\/p>\n
in question. He borrovJed.ii’the Iisaivdtsireotorbike
\nfrom its realowne-i”;'”The ieannot be<\/p>\n
heid to” of the<\/p>\n
moftor_hi}:<ie'a]t.hough_ ihewas authorized to drive
\nthe 'said Vve11.iVcic-ifbxfi-.t_s"'oWner and therefore, he<\/p>\n
wouid is'te}:i) i.nt–o t.he"~'shoes of the owner of the<\/p>\n
~ r351.OT3o'i'bike. A'   …..\n<\/p>\n
 have already extracted Section<\/p>\n
 MVA hereinbefore. A bare<\/p>\n
“‘;oer:gisa;.1\u00ab””of the said provision wouid make it<\/p>\n
ezscptieitly Clear that persons like the deceased<\/p>\n
 _ in the present case would step into the shoes<\/p>\n
of the owner of the vehicle in a case wherein<\/p>\n
MFA NO4847\/2003
\nC\/W MFA CROB 19\/2004
\n: I4 :\n<\/p>\n
the victim died or where he was permanently<\/p>\n
disabled due to an accident arising out of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid motor vehicle in that event thefy”<\/p>\n
1ia.b%1ity to make payment of the coIr1pensatj_\u00a75V;i:gV”-:””– <\/p>\n
is on the insurance company or the o\\Nn–ei;’,  is<\/p>\n
the case may be as p1’oV%dedm\u00a7.1nder”Sejetion: ‘<\/p>\n
}E>3~A. But if it is proved that theporiixferi
\nowner of the motor vehicle,  tixat casveithe it 3<\/p>\n
owner eouid not himsieI.:f’~V.1;e  reci.piient’~–.::o’f”‘
\nCompensation as the IiaEj_i]_iityV’to.’pay.ithesarne<\/p>\n
is on him. This .iis”a_b_soIute1y dear<\/p>\n
on a reading of  MVA.\n<\/p>\n
Aeeording.1y,::”the  of the<\/p>\n
deeeased_have _ste.pp._ed]iritOiHthe shoes of<\/p>\n
the owi.1eVr’i’of m.otor vehicle could not have
\nciainied eorrlopien\u00e9:-aVtion’\u00ab*;inder Section 163A of<\/p>\n
the MVP…”\n<\/p>\n
 in the”‘(:’ase on hand also the claimant<\/p>\n
 rider of the Motoreycie at the time of<\/p>\n
aeeidentV.e1i1iid_. on the request of the owner of the Vehicle<\/p>\n
  rode\ufb01he same. There was no other tort feasor<\/p>\n
 .”invo1f{%ed in the accident. Therefore, in terms of the law<\/p>\n
 _]aid CiO\\\u00bb’H] in Ningatnina\ufb01s ease, the claimant stepped<\/p>\n
MFA NO.4847\/2003
\nC.\/W MFA CROB 19\/2004<\/p>\n
:35}:\n<\/p>\n
into the shoes of the owrzer of the Motorcycle as such he
\ncould not make a claim against the insurer  the
\nMotorcycle under Sectirm l.63–A lVl.\\\/.Act. The
\ndown by Supreme Court in Ningamma’s
\nsupra that, since the primary res.po_nAsihli.liltvjf.iTtolsati:sfy=-_ it
\nthe award tmder Section l63~A
\nthe motorcycle and the claiIr;lg;:ifit.V_hai\/’Air:gQ1;__ “the
\nshoes of the owner could  at  under<\/p>\n
Section l.63–A of  to the case<\/p>\n
on hand.\n<\/p>\n
l2:__V A”7Di\\4’isi,ori\u00ab,:”Ben_cl’1 of this Court in G.<\/p>\n
Sharadal’s_easelrefe’rr’edl”‘to”stipra has also held that, the<\/p>\n
_.uim’\u00ab~~:.._Vcseetioii l63~A of “‘E.’v’.Act is not<\/p>\n
iI:.ai.iitaii1ah_l case the victim himself was the rider of<\/p>\n
ithe’-i’.jI\\\/lot$o.r’i:ycli:-and if no other vehicle was involved in<\/p>\n
the “acc:i–.dei’;tC in this decision, the Sivisioh Bench has<\/p>\n
,:c1.isti_hgt\ufb01sliecl the judgement of Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Eleepal Girishhhai Soni’s case, referred to supra by<\/p>\n
MFA NO.4847\/2003
\nC\/W MFA CROB 19\/2004
\n.’ 1(1) :\n<\/p>\n
observing that the ratio of said decision. is applicaioie to<\/p>\n
a case where the injured \/ claimant or the
\nwell as any other tort feasors may  ~
\ncontributed to the accident. a1’lCi_i.D.,_S’UCiT’l’
\ninjured \/ ciaimant or the deCease:d\u00abto–.r_f
\ncompensation from the A”‘:._R’e’1;e\\fant ” V
\nobservations of .Divisio__h E3eriAc171i:io1,zi’r~r:1’.at.ipar.asfi2 82; 23<\/p>\n
are under:\n<\/p>\n
“22f  d.e.oision is the
\ndecisigoriiiiiof   Court in the<\/p>\n
 82; Others Vs.
\nUinitecl I’iI\u00a7s:;i’r.a4i’iebe”iw\u00a2’o*rr1’par1y Limited, Baroda
\nre1:jo.rted i1a.iA1iR so 207 which is a
\nAedecisiioiaV_:irentier’edii”‘1oy a larger Bench on a
\n‘i’:”e;fe:re.?oce ioi\u00a7~=’a—B’e1i_c}1 of two Judges doubting
\n_VVth.e’\u00ab.e’ori”‘eetness of the earlier decision in
\nVCi):’i4e’I_1.iaiii.::”Iiisurance Company Limited Vs.
\n Ha:-.~sif’agb;qa1 Kodaie reported in 2001(1) soc
\n in the said decision it has been held<\/p>\n
AA ‘i”w,t’hat Section 1.63% of the Act covers cases
\n‘ii-‘}iere even NEIGLAC}-EJNCE is on the part of<\/p>\n
the victim. It is by vva\\,-‘ of an exception to<\/p>\n
~”\u00bb.\/-. T1’.-….\n<\/p>\n
;ti”:c_ iiui:\n<\/p>\n
MFA \u00a3\\I().-@847\/2003
\nc\/w MFA cnoe 19\/2004<\/p>\n
Section H36 and the concept of social justice <\/p>\n
has been duly taken care of. The ratio
\nthis \u00e9ecision. in our VlC’W applies to a
\nwhere the injtireci\/claimant or the dece__e1se:d.:
\nas well as any other t()F\u00a7””‘f\u20ac.a’SO’\u00a3”!Wlfllfi'”iiQT’tiV
\nfeasors may have jointly CiC1fltF:i’b’.t”\u00a3CiCi~._itO
\naccident and in   event’<\/p>\n
in} ured \/ claimant or the””d:e’ceased’* .l_::()iI’E feziisioriii<\/p>\n
and can claiin_.Com,p’ens:ati’on from-A <\/p>\n
wrongful person.\n<\/p>\n
23c  i   of the
\nl:)ivisi.c>.1qi–..el:’\u00a73c~gi1:f:1i’::C1._’cf1  cou:i’tiiin:iAippaji’s case
\nis appl..ic3ih’l’e to  i\ufb01ghere there is no
\n    that the
\niiijui*’eti \/”  hdeceasecl was solely<\/p>\n
I-esp’cnslible”inicia’o.s’i.ng the accident. Though<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
-e.le”f-3’i::p’:*e:.’x’ae court has opined that<\/p>\n
 \u20acSe.’ctio’n_ l63\u00a7}X””of the Act covers case where<\/p>\n
 is on the part of the<\/p>\n
.’–..ivicitin”f1p*..2ii,id is by wzaiy of exception to Section<\/p>\n
 16-.E3.of”iit’he Act, the Said enunciation has to<\/p>\n
bzC’.’,_.:I}”1E1C.l{? applicable to a case where the<\/p>\n
iii\ufb01ictim is negligent along with other tort<\/p>\n
feasor who has also con.trib’utec\u00a7 to the<\/p>\n
MFA N(.).4\u00bb847\/2003
\nC\/W MFA CROB E9\/2004
\n: 18 :<\/span><\/p>\n
aceidenti. But in at ease Wh\u20acI’\u20ac the injured__.__
\nclaimant or the deceased alone is the
\nof the accident and there is no other pe~r~so_jh.’__’__”‘V.j’
\ninxroived as in the instance case, then :’1’f1__jt}:a;f:”:.t:
\nevent Appajfs case beC0me.s~app1ieethi’e”e.si1ciV
\nthe injuzed\/claimant. tor
\nrepresentatives of  _4_deceVa.s_ed
\nentitled to compeiisatiorajjixnder  <\/p>\n
of the Act on 1io…fau1txb–e.s:i’Ls. \u00e9m_<.:1 the'i1'v-cl:-313m
\nunder Section V  }   is not<\/p>\n
maintainable as he} '<_i1'i the 'said"5de'\u00a2ision of<\/p>\n
the Division Bench Qf.thi's c'oi:;;trtf_7<\/p>\n
We   v"{::I.gVV'I"\u20ac\u20ac31'1"1E31'1TZ with the<\/p>\n
obser\\r;1tion_s "oi?the"\u00abDivi,s'i'oV11 Bench in G. Sharada's case.<\/p>\n
Therefcireh the Supreme Court in Deepal<\/p>\n
Girishb.}1.e1i S\u00ab:;i':i'_'7case is not appiicabie to the case on<\/p>\n
 as ,ho 'o,i_;her vehicle was involved in the accident.<\/p>\n
L111   matter, the claim petition fiied under<\/p>\n
S\u20acCt.i'()I? of 1\\\/!.V.\/–\\ct is not maintainable.<\/p>\n
.s,';i'he1jef()v:9e, the Judgement and award is liable to be set-<\/p>\n
.  asidie}<\/p>\n
MFA NC).48-4'7\/2003<\/p>\n
C\/W MFA CROB 39\/2004
\n: IQ :\n<\/p>\n
13. The alternative argument of Sri.J.S.Shetty is
\nthat, if the petition under Section i63wA is not
\nmaintainabie in the facts and circumstances of the\u00bb-case<\/p>\n
C I
\n5g i1}.–i{.'”‘-\u00bb.5r\u00e9(.*–;\\   i V * _  ~ 2
\nfor considerationQvhether petition under Section” ‘ _<\/p>\n
maintainai3ie, the matter is I’\u20acqL11’I:’Qdb”‘[O
\nhas been done in Ningamma’s case
\nsubstance in this arg’umen\u00a5;iV._”<–Azs aiirea\ufb01dyg
\nfor the reasons best known
\ngot the petition oriVgin:g11_]y"d–. Section 166<\/p>\n
changed to OnC.'Ltnd\u20ac1f"'S\u20acCQiiOVT1 observed by<\/p>\n
the Apr:i<i"Coti'i';t in::fiNin'ga&rnma_'s"case, in a petition under
\nSection\u00bb, 166, .the':V:'eA1:aindanVt*–has to prove the negligence
\non the part of the tort feiasor. In the case on hand there<\/p>\n
was no otlief tor't..feas'or Tor the accident except claimant<\/p>\n
 As held"i'h"'Ningamma's case, for all practica.1<\/p>\n
 pi,irpose_vs;~r th.ev._c1aimant was the owner of the vehicle<\/p>\n
1sin'c_e he  into the shoes of the owner. Therefore,<\/p>\n
the'–.(;1aiivm'e'3.n%; cannot be both recipient and tort feasor.<\/p>\n
*._The clairi-1a.nt in a petition under Section 166, is not<\/p>\n
2"'?\n<\/p>\n
MFA NO4847\/2003
\nC\/W MFA CROB 19\/2004
\n2 20 :\n<\/p>\n
entitled for any compensation for his own negligence. In
\nthe case on hand, the claimant having stepped into’ the
\nshoes of the owner, cannot maintain a claim
\nagainst the insurer even under Section  .
\nwe see no ground to remand the matter tfsiitheiliif
\nHence, the argument is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
14. As the petition ‘~tts’elf:%not_ m_a1n.ta.inable,<\/p>\n
question whether the ctlia”iirr:ali;tVi”-sis en\ufb01tled for
\nenhancement does not-1Vs1\u00a71’rviive_.~._fortconsideration.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the ‘anneal ::__filed–.:~’by\u00ab. thie’–..insf:1rance company<\/p>\n
deserve to ‘aivloyvied zvh*i.lve the cross objections filed by
\nthe clairnant is ilia\u00e9olertoubediismissed.<\/p>\n
4;’l’:>.r_ It “iS_i”siubroitted by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
app_earii*tg _for__ the insurance company that, after the<\/p>\n
i”k.1Cl”K–“.\u00a5\u20ac2.’If1V’&”:\ufb01’i[~.V,_Ei’I;1′(1l’i” award came to be assecl by the<\/p>\n
.Trib”{mav~}.i, ‘the entire compensation amount was<\/p>\n
 ,depQsite”d 1337 the insurance company before the Tribunal<\/p>\n
 and the same has been withdrawn by the clairnant in<\/p>\n
:17’
\n“.;gg,…….. .\n<\/p>\n
“*1a.:r\u00e9;’a&y%–.g;ait:..by it. ” “”” ”<\/p>\n
MFA NO4847\/2003
\nC\/W MFA CROB 19\/2004
\n: 21 :<\/span><\/p>\n
terms of the :;1ward. Therefore, he submitted that,
\niiberty may be reserved to the appeilarlbinsurance
\ncompany to take appropriate szeps to recover
\namoum.\n<\/p>\n
Acc’.0rding1y, the appeai fife;:1 by
\ncompany is allowed. The jLzdge’merrtA.\u00e9\u00a7\ufb01Se\u00a2tion 163-A is
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Insurance at liberty to Workout its
\nremeAd3;-‘ as ie fJI3<3:a7'to it tinder law to recover the an.1ou:r1t,<\/p>\n
S\ufb02fi
\nEUDGE<\/p>\n
S\u00e9fg
\nJUDGE<\/p>\n
V%   <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Branch Manager New India … vs Nagaraj Subraya Shetty on 15 September, 2010 Author: H.G.Ramesh And K.N.Keshavanarayana [BY N;R_;P\u00a7;:;,UR,’gxDv) MFA NQ4847\/2003 C\/W MFA CROB 19\/2004 1 I : IN THE I~II(.’:H CLJLERT 0%’ Ix”.ARNATA1{A cnewrr E3ENC}~I AT D H ARWAD I.)A”\u00a7’I.-ID ‘r1~–us ‘1?-1.1+: xsw DAY 01: SEPTEMBER 2010 PRESENT THIE: H()N’BLE […]<\/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-181616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Branch Manager New India ... vs Nagaraj Subraya Shetty on 15 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\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Branch Manager New India ... vs Nagaraj Subraya Shetty on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-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=\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-01T08:30:11+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=\"18 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-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Branch Manager New India … vs Nagaraj Subraya Shetty on 15 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-01T08:30:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3179,\"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-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010\",\"name\":\"The Branch Manager New India ... vs Nagaraj Subraya Shetty on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-01T08:30:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Branch Manager New India … vs Nagaraj Subraya Shetty on 15 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":"The Branch Manager New India ... vs Nagaraj Subraya Shetty on 15 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\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Branch Manager New India ... vs Nagaraj Subraya Shetty on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-01T08:30:11+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Branch Manager New India … vs Nagaraj Subraya Shetty on 15 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-01T08:30:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010"},"wordCount":3179,"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-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010","name":"The Branch Manager New India ... vs Nagaraj Subraya Shetty on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-01T08:30:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-new-india-vs-nagaraj-subraya-shetty-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Branch Manager New India … vs Nagaraj Subraya Shetty on 15 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\/181616","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=181616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181616\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}