{"id":195437,"date":"2008-06-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008"},"modified":"2018-12-08T23:43:04","modified_gmt":"2018-12-08T18:13:04","slug":"smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Smt T Munitayamma vs Oriental Insurance Co on 5 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt T Munitayamma vs Oriental Insurance Co on 5 June, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Manjula Chellur K.N.Keshavanarayana<\/div>\n
IN THE HTGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT \n\nDATED THIS THE 5?\" {DAY OF JUNE 2008\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRSJUSTECE MANJULA      T.\n\nAND\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K.N.:KESHAyANARA$Aj5sA T  T\n\nMISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL N%\u00a7.4238!'2Q\u00a7)@(Mv)'~ _ , , T \n\ncxw. \n\nMISCELLANEOUS FIRST A\u00a7fPE,_AL  \n\nnu MFA \ufb01g 4238 or 2%': t \nggmggu : T  \n\n1\n\nsm T Mummvasama T -   \n36 YEARS  .' '. 2  1'. : A\nWIO 1.:-J'\\1\"\u00a3-.jG 'i*\u00e9ARA\u00a5fftNNA_ FREDDY'\nRIO cio sazgsuvas REr::.nY.\"KMF\nNoT1T2q,':>EvAs:.AcHjExANAH:\u00bba;LI,\nm POST,'.;3G F:OAD,'~$TM LAYOUT,\n\nBANGALoREj$zs  H \n\nYASHASWIW   R if,\nV --1.3YEAR.S. 'MINOR\n\n.  we LATE GNARATYANNA REDDY\n 'RIO czo SRTNIVAS REDDY, KMF\n\nNO .1 2.0; \"DEVARACI-IEKANAHALLI.\n\nT\" \"V  as ROAD, BTM LAYOUT.\n\n %\u00abeANc5AL0RE--76\n\nV REPTBTY THEIR MOTHER\n\n N3TuRAL GUARDTAN MUNITAYAMMA\n\nTHITZJASWINI\n\n\" T 6 YEARS, MINOR\n\nV' *  D10 LATE G NARAYANNA REDDY\n\nRIO CID SRINIVAS REDDY, KMF\n\nN0 120, DEVARACHEKANAHALLL\n\nHM POST. BG ROAD. BTM LAYOUT,\nBANGALORE-76\n\nREP BY THEIR MOTHER\n\nNATURAL GUARDIAN MUNITAYAMMA\n\n\n\nk A - _  jay Sri.M sownaswu, ADV. FOR R1\n\n4 MOTAMMA\n\nWIO LATE GURAPPA REDDY\n64 YEARS\n\nMOTHER OF LATE G NARAYANNA REDDY\nRIO CID SRNIVAS REDDY, KMF\n\nNO 120. DEVARACHEKANAHALLL\nIIM POST. BG ROAD. BTM LAYOUT,\nBANGALORE-76  \"\n\n(By Sri.V S PRASAD. ADV.)\n\n1 ORiENTAL INSURANCE co   _\nD:vIs:oNAL omce' \" T %     \nPAVITHRA SOUTH AVENUE ;\n\n3\"\" FLOOR 9?'? MAIN RQAD' \nll! BLOCK; .3A1Y_ANA\u20ac3AR.'~\"'  A\nBANGAL(}RE\u00e9V_1__1'. ~  M     V\nREP BY ITS \u00a3)!Vi$%0N--\u00a3d,. MANAGER\nINSLQRER 't':F\u00ab:.N}AX1_,_CAB N91-950\n\n2 cm $F?.INViA-$__REDD_Y'-  4'  \n B'{.AG.E~     \nSIO MUNISWAMY' REED'!\nRIO NC-11912, 0mm, 1 15\nCHi_NNAY\u00a5ANA :=w..AvA_\n_~  CROSS'.\"'J\\!..lL$ON GARDEN.\n* % k kosmwea es-5 MAXI CAB NO KA-11-950\n\n3 X % -.3 s 'SHANMUGA\n\" SIC) MUNISWAMY REDDY\n R!_O1NO19i2 OLD NO 115\n* s  CHINNAYYANA PALAYA\n, 'STH CROSS. WILSON GARDEN.\n' ' \"BANGN..ORE~3O\nDRIVER OF MAXI CA8 KA-11-850\n RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
” R2 8: 3 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
\/\/X<\/p>\n
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FlLED_.._L_J!S
\n173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
AND AWARD DATED 14.2.2003 PASSED IN MVC <\/p>\n
ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDLJUDGE, MEMBER.~~~~MACTa7, ”
\nCOURT OF SMALL CAUSES. BANGALORE, (SCCW7). PAR’TLY’\u00bb
\nALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITIGQ FOR COMPEN$A.TiO’N.Au’iD .  <\/p>\n
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPE!\u00a7l$A1_’IoN_.,’ ”  A 1-  3  <\/p>\n
EEBMEEH<\/p>\n
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE. co;.A’m  ~
\nREGD omce AT ASAF A!JfROAD., A A D
\nNEW neuaa & BANGALORE Aamsoma. CJFji’~.!CE_
\nAT LEO snow-ms   A
\nRESlDENCYROA!.’J”\u20ac3ROS\u00bb3.””*..’  V
\nBANGALORE-1;\n<\/p>\n
Rravns RE(;..!CBNAi;’h\ufb01ANAGE?.R.\n<\/p>\n
(By Sri.,.PA–SOWRI   ‘A A <\/p>\n
1 SMTT M1JNlTHAYAMMA
\nV Huuou’; FEMALEADULT.\n<\/p>\n
,  wio G NAFEAYANA REDDY.\n<\/p>\n
 * R10 sasmvnsaaenov KMF.\n<\/p>\n
R. I’ 510.120;-DEVARACHIKANAT-IALLI.
\nV – TT:1anTP0aI.As G ROAD,<\/p>\n
–  A. BTMLAYOUT,<\/p>\n
A BANGALORE-76.\n<\/p>\n
 2   ..YiAST-VIASWINT<\/p>\n
T T rm (3 NARAYANA REDDY
\n~ HINDU, FEMALE.\n<\/p>\n
  Mama, RIBY THEIR MOTHER<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT NOS} AS<\/p>\n
NATURAL GUARDIAN & NEXT FRIEND.\n<\/p>\n
RIO SRINIVASA REDDY KMF,<\/p>\n
NOJ20. DEVARACHIKANAHALLI,<\/p>\n
IIM POST, B G ROAD.\n<\/p>\n
BTM LAYOUT,<\/p>\n
BANGALORE-76.\n<\/p>\n
J_LLD_\u00a7_M_E_N1<\/p>\n
As bo\ufb01w these appeais arise out of the same
\naward passed by me MACT. eamaore cityfagg
\nNo.1146I1999. they were heard togeme; gee are oeingeepoesd of ‘ x k<\/p>\n
by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
2. MFA No.4238I2003 is  the  so we<\/p>\n
No.1146I19m seeking enij4a:1oemei?i:t’V’oVf:. “being dis\u00bb
\nsatis\ufb01ed with the quentu\ufb01: $   by the<\/p>\n
MFA   f\u00e9epondont No.1 in the claim
\npetition  co. Lu, questioning the legality
\nand  of   award passed by the Tribunal
\nboth on   negligence and on the quantum of<\/p>\n
. V.  oonipeh\u00e9et\u00e9o\ufb01 A<\/p>\n
   course of the judgment, the parties will be<\/p>\n
referred  feference to their ranking in me Courts below.<\/p>\n
 4.’*–.V’:t’.he”petitioner Nos.1 to 4 claiming he be me wife, two<\/p>\n
* fneinq; daughters and mothew of one G.Narayana Roddy, filed claim
\n  before the Tribunal in we No.114s1199o seeking
\n= eompensa\ufb01on for the death of the said G\ufb02arayane Roddy, who<\/p>\n
died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 2.3.1999 at about<\/p>\n
5.45 PM.\n<\/p>\n
5. The brief averments made in the oiaim petition a\ufb01reetiieig<\/p>\n
While the said G.Natayana Roddy was   <\/p>\n
Motorcycle Raidoot bearing No.CAC \u00abms aiong .hi;sf   <\/p>\n
venkateeh Roddy on Varthur Tank  Randi. fa  7<\/p>\n
No.KA-11-950 driven by the 3″‘ respondentoeme   V  ,<\/p>\n
direction’ and dashed against me   Rio said
\nNarayana Raddy died at giyiiiion rideru’GV.iIenkatesh
\nRaddy died late in the mnipai no\u00bbspna. one accident was<\/p>\n
due to nis;h”ane”ii9gsi\u00a7g’n: eiiying eiiin\u00e9inaxi Cab by its driver i.e 3″‘<\/p>\n
 The  the owner. The 1″ nespondent<\/p>\n
is the insurer”of the  Therefore, responclens 1 to 3<\/p>\n
 v  _areengi seV\u00e9i’a!!y.!iabie to compensate the petitioners for \ufb02ue<\/p>\n
 Narayana Roddy. That the -deceased was the<\/p>\n
 of the family and ail the petitioners were<\/p>\n
 depeiaciiiig onfine earnings of the deceased. That the deemed<\/p>\n
 about 35 ywrs and he was working as an Electric’ ian<\/p>\n
   Ciass-i license contractor and from me said work he was<\/p>\n
Vi  ” “eeming Rs.6.000f– per month as saiary. in addition to Rs.50I- per<\/p>\n
day towards food and conveyance. FI.If\ufb01’I9l’ the decemod was also
\ndoing milk procurement between 4.00 to 6.00 AM. and from {his<\/p>\n
business he was earning a minimum of Rs.5.000I– per month.___ in<\/p>\n
addition to this. the deceased was doing ooooonai agm:uiroroiTeore,<\/p>\n
From this he used to get Rs.20.0G0l- per crop and to <\/p>\n
two crops per year. Thus, the avetegemcome’   it”<\/p>\n
from all the sources was Rs.15.000l- and “to <\/p>\n
entire income to the welfare andbene\ufb01t oftho  eii  ‘<\/p>\n
these contentions. the petitioners: for  of
\nRs.25,00,000I- under va\ufb02oeueiheaaiie. V  ~  o . f i   <\/p>\n
6. inspite of service of   Noo.2 and 3
\nremained absent end eicparte. The<\/p>\n
  V.:’.’eredu:t>Vefore the Tribunal through his
\ntamed couinseli and claim petition. in its objection.
\nthe respondent “No.5!  oi! the petition evermente end<\/p>\n
 V.   that ti1e”eocis.te’nt in queetion was not on account of rash<\/p>\n
 odd negiigentdriving of the Maxi Cab by respondent No.3. But on<\/p>\n
 other  was due to the negligence of the deceased<\/p>\n
 himooai gnome the Motorcycle. it also denied the allegations<\/p>\n
it it ‘ \u00a5reg;er4din:g”‘ti1e various avocations said to have been pursued by the<\/p>\n
   and me income. it was further contended diet the<\/p>\n
it  “compensation ciaimed was highly excessive and exorbitant.<\/p>\n
However. respondent No.1 admitted the issuance of the Policy and
\n‘rm vaiidity as on the date of the accident but contended that its<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
Iiabitity is subject to the terms and condihns of die Policy and the
\nprovisions of the Motor Vehictm Act.\n<\/p>\n
7. During trial. the petitioners examined  <\/p>\n
marked Exs.P.1 to 5\u00b029. On behatf of the  earn    <\/p>\n
evidence was let in. However. copy of <\/p>\n
to be marked as Ex.D.1.\n<\/p>\n
8. After hearing both sidV.t;…tt:e  the<\/p>\n
Trtbunat by his judgment gunder appee!..he!d thet  was
\ndue to rash and negligent” of  by its driver-<\/p>\n
 ”   of the evidence placed on
\nrecord. the  total income of the deceased at
\nRs.7,5oo:. pa;-monmteandea\ufb01ar deducting 113*” towards his personal<\/p>\n
 ”   duentiited  toss of dependency at Rs.5,000i~ pm. By<\/p>\n
  appiying-die  of 1 1, me Tribunal quan\ufb01\ufb01ed the total loss of<\/p>\n
de;\u00a7eadeh\u00a2yta;t32s.e.eo,oooI\u00bb. To this. ttm Tribunal added anovner<\/p>\n
 sum\u00e9\u00e9of Re.3t),000I- under conventional heads and awarded total<\/p>\n
 ‘u..j*’V.oons::.eneetion of Rs.6.90.000I-. The Tribunal directed the<\/p>\n
—   No.1 to pay the en\ufb01re compensation amount together<\/p>\n
T   interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition tit! due date of<\/p>\n
payment. Being dis-satis\ufb01ed with the quantum of compensation
\nawarded. petitioners 1 to 4 as stated wrlier have \ufb01led MFA<\/p>\n
No.4238I2003, while the Insurance Company questioning the
\n\ufb01ndings ofthe Tribunal has filed MFA No.4349f2003. ‘  <\/p>\n
9. We have heard the learned couneel eppeefrine”*on..hot\u00a7a” –. <\/p>\n
sides.\n<\/p>\n
1d. Learned counsel appeerinig for   to 4<\/p>\n
eontended that though the ‘e.yidenoe_   on
\nrecord indicates that the   the Tribunal
\nhas erroneously.telrer;    deceased only at
\nRs.7,500I-\u00bb.  Tribunal for the purpose
\nof \ufb01nding  erroneously taken the
\naveregeiage   his mower. In \ufb01wis regard. he
\ncontended  t.’1eVVV’Tritbnnelrought to have taken the age of the<\/p>\n
 _ A’ only for”ihe…purpose of \ufb01nding out the proper multiplier,<\/p>\n
 estite  in this case has left behind his wife and minor<\/p>\n
liohiylidren He further contended that having<\/p>\n
V dd . regard to’: number of dependents only 114″ of his monthly<\/p>\n
W H ”   ehould have been deducted for his personal expenses and<\/p>\n
  is-alanoe 314″‘ should have been considered as his contribution to<\/p>\n
i    family and based on this the “Tribunal ought to have quanti\ufb01ed<\/p>\n
it the loss of dependency. He further contended mat the amounts<\/p>\n
awarded under the conventional heads are on the lower side and<\/p>\n
they need to be enhanced. He also contended that the rate of<\/p>\n
interest awarded by the Tribune! at 6% is on the <\/p>\n
needs to be enhanced to 9%.\n<\/p>\n
11. On the other hand, teamed counee!-.,.a;;peeringA  –\u00ab.. <\/p>\n
respondent No.1-Insurance Company <\/p>\n
the Tribunal regarding actionabie negtigeriee is _erron’eou$*3 and <\/p>\n
having regard to the oral and  evidence, the ‘Tribune! V<\/p>\n
ought to have held that \ufb02’:’e..aocider{t  eoiely due”to”negiigence
\nof the deceased himsetf in  ttiei”motoro3icte}  Alternatively, he<\/p>\n
contended that,   on record, the<\/p>\n
  that there was contributory
\nneg!igenzceVV’oriVthe_oert.:’o\u00a5~”dmeased and such contributory<\/p>\n
negiigence ough_t’to.h.ave’~be’e7n quanti\ufb01ed for the purpose of smling<\/p>\n
 ”  .oornpenea\ufb01on’;” He further contended that the evidence<\/p>\n
  by regarding the income of the deceased are<\/p>\n
u”nre”iiab|e’  same is not convincing and wceptable. He<\/p>\n
 contended that the Tribunal had no basis for fixing the monthly<\/p>\n
  at the deceased at Rs.7,50OI-. He contended that the<\/p>\n
  of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under<\/p>\n
” u V   ‘conventional heads are excessive.<\/p>\n
12. In the light of the above. the points mat arise fe.>.r___ our<\/p>\n
consideration are;\n<\/p>\n
0 Whether the Tribunal was justified in  <\/p>\n
accident was sorely due to   ‘  K V’<\/p>\n
of the driver of the Maxi C\u00e9b  respondent’;  ._  if’<\/p>\n
ii) mmether the quant\\_jm.. of”\n<\/p>\n
requires to  enhanqaid-arr  T_  _ E<\/p>\n
13. \ufb02_\ufb01g,__(j)_;  speci\ufb01c case
\nof the pe\ufb01tioners  whim riding
\nhis nlotorcyci\u00e9 .4Vl__’i’f\u00e92_6:’r_:aI<\/p>\n
this. it is clear that the Maxi Cab  prism-ng  North
\nto South instead of   has  to the
\nextreme Western  of tne…9aa.a.ls.  side and dashed
\nagainst the  Scum to North
\nkeeping to his   ‘side of the read. From
\nthis  is cert:-.gt the accident was solely
\ndue to the the Maxi cab. Ex.P.7 is the
\ncopy of tl1eVVV’charaeV\ufb01stteet_.i’ which shows mt after investigation.<\/p>\n
 .Poiie*;~iiiiIeaftst\u00a2 cha’rge…_eheet against the driver of the Maxi Cab.<\/p>\n
A”:__As;av;ainet4titis<…die.respondents have not let in any evidence. The<\/p>\n
dritzgfof ud1e'."_ifAai-tivliilab was die best person to speak about the<\/p>\n
V –V manner  the accident occurred. For the reasons best<\/p>\n
_ .. – ..    to the respondent. the dtiver of the Maxi cab has not been<\/p>\n
 From the records it is also noticed diet no effort has<\/p>\n
   made by respondent No.1 to secure the presence of the<\/p>\n
it ' " driver of the Maxi cab for giving evidence. In this View of the<\/p>\n
matter, we are of die View that the Tribunal is justi\ufb01ed in holding<\/p>\n
that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of
\nthe Maxi Cab by its driver and there was no <\/p>\n
contributory negiigenee on the part of \ufb01ne deceased;  <\/p>\n
we answer point No.(i) in the ef\ufb01rnia\ufb01ve,  <\/p>\n
14. Pain; near)’ : As noticed aeeeie is ease <\/p>\n
appeiianislciaimants that the   “as an <\/p>\n
Eiectrician in Progressive iEri’gineerin\u00a7r,”ry’\u00a2es’-\u00bbe_iso doing. rniiik vending
\nbusiness and was aiso on  to mom the
\ndeceased was   Rs.50I- per day
\nas batta frornifie    per month from
\nmiik veneine fper month from agriculture.
\nThus,  ‘oleizoieswts-tote! monthly income of deceased
\nwas   and from met amount if 113″‘ is<\/p>\n
dedijgcted. toveardsuhis eeeenei exeeesee, and by applying the<\/p>\n
    loss of dependency workout to<\/p>\n
   it is the grievance of the epeeliante that the<\/p>\n
Tribune)\u00bb  iaken the monthly income of the decemed at<\/p>\n
 f?s.7.50\u00a7i\u00a7’- from all sources and has applied multiplier of 11, by<\/p>\n
 taking the average age of the deceased and his mother and has<\/p>\n
‘  Heeanuned the loss of dependency at Rs.6,60.000l-. Thus,<\/p>\n
according to the appellants. this method adopted by the Tribunal is
\nerroneous and the compensation under this head is too low as such<\/p>\n
it requires to be enhanced.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15. From para-8 of judgment under appeal, it is noiic_ec_i_ that
\nthe Tribune! has taken the income of the deceased at <\/p>\n
from all sources Le. Rs.4.000I- as salary    <\/p>\n
Eiectrician, Rs.2,000I- from milk verrding\u00e9anci’ ”<\/p>\n
agriculture. Thereafter by    <\/p>\n
expenses of the deceased and hyappiyirig  ‘i31   ‘<\/p>\n
me basis of the average age of and:   has
\nquanti\ufb01ed \ufb02ue loss of   A H<\/p>\n
16. Let us now  ihe case of the
\nappellants regardi\ufb01itne  from each of the<\/p>\n
  i  The wire or the
\n eiiasaioed as PW.1, in her orai evrde’ nce<\/p>\n
has reiterated .fi’ret__!1″e’r husband was working as Electrician earning<\/p>\n
‘   rrrorrtiiwapart from Rs.50I– per day as batta,<\/p>\n
  vending business and Rs.40.000l~ pa from<\/p>\n
agricixiaxreri  According to her. her husband used to pay her<\/p>\n
“‘-..Rs.15,G9Q;i– to Rs.17,000I– per month for family expenses.<\/p>\n
V’:1 fxcc:ording to her, after the death of her husband she ms soici away<\/p>\n
V’   tire cows and for iooking after the agiicsittarai land, she has<\/p>\n
i’ appointed one Bhadranna on payment of Rs.3.000I– per month,<\/p>\n
who inturn gives her Rs.10.00QI– every year and Ragi also. PW.1,
\nthe wife of the deceased in her evidence has stated that one<\/p>\n
Mr.Nayak was paying her husband a salary of Rs.6,000i- and
\nRs.50I- per day. In the cross-examination. it is elicited frernd’.i?:’\\N_,_1<\/p>\n
that her husband was neither a Diploma nor a  <\/p>\n
work as Electrician nor he has obtained any     i <\/p>\n
Government to work as Electrician.\n<\/p>\n
studied up to ssLc. She has  tire-.si.iggestion.i_that ‘sneiihssi <\/p>\n
deposed falseiy to and arrest that onmayaki was pa;}’i=n\u00a7’ A<\/p>\n
per month as salary apart .Rs.5(\u00e9)I’-\u00a7;”‘  is one
\nRavindia Nayak. In his ofai   that he is a
\nCiass-I Electrical    of a concern
\nby name    stated that the
\n  for 10 years prior
\nto his     to execute electrical work like
\npower   etc. According to him no<\/p>\n
 v _  Er;i3eliticaiiori\u00abis_.required for working as Electrical supervisor<\/p>\n
 ‘and  Narayana Raddy was experienced in eiectrical<\/p>\n
‘.ii1:$a\u00e9!iaaon’i.’is’ori\u20ac\u00a7”v.Aecording to him, the deceased worked under<\/p>\n
  or hirnuiiii. and of February 1999 and was paid salary of Rs.6,000I-<\/p>\n
i A   psr..rnonti’i and daily baits of Rs.5OI\u00ab- for conveyance. According to<\/p>\n
 concern has KST and CST numbers. He has stated that<\/p>\n
   i’\u00e9x.P.12 is the certi\ufb01cate issued by him in respect of deceased and<\/p>\n
it bears his signature. in the cross-examination, it is eiicitaed from<\/p>\n
PW.2 that he is not an income Tax assesses and he had employed<\/p>\n
four persons to work in his concern. It is funhei eiiciied from\/.__b|1im<\/p>\n
that his monthly income is Rs.6.000I- to Rs.7.000l- deoeho*ihg,:on<\/p>\n
me work he got and his monthly inoomo will   <\/p>\n
Rs.1o.ooo:– if he get maximum work. Aooohiihg   A ‘<\/p>\n
average monthiy income is Rs.6.000!– iio   <\/p>\n
from him that he is not maintaiiiiifigxeny”  <\/p>\n
employees and with regard to  to:\n<\/p>\n
towards their salary etc. i-ioiiiiios   that he used io one
\nrewipts from his employees ‘giayments and that
\nmore is no hqidio   to him. the
\ndeceased   20 Kms. away from the
\nplace  work’    that the deceased
\nNarayarie   under him as Elwtrician on a<\/p>\n
salary oi_as;e,ooo;..s poi in the reemmination. it is oiioiioci<\/p>\n
 V.  _. fAroii-i:{hiii*i’.th’a1;’his  inoome of Rs.6.000I- to Rs.7.\u20ac)O0l- was<\/p>\n
   his empioyees and oiher incidental expenses<\/p>\n
.en;iVhisV_\u00e9ai’ii~;i_2iii turnover is about Rs.3 iaichs and he eon also<\/p>\n
 produce all ihe reievant documents before the Court. He has also<\/p>\n
hi l[j~  the KS’? and CST numbers. In the further examination he<\/p>\n
 admitted that he has not submitised mo poriiooiais of the<\/p>\n
V’  “employees to the Labour Department. This is an the oral evidenoe<\/p>\n
regarding the evocation of the deceased as Electrician. Now the<\/p>\n
ques\ufb01on is whether this evidence is suf\ufb01oient to accept the case of<\/p>\n
the petitioner that the deceased was working as Electrician. As
\nalready noticed above. PW.1 who is the wife of the deceased has
\nnot disclosed the name of the concern in which her <\/p>\n
stated to have been working as Electrician. Though _<\/p>\n
that he is the Class\u00bb-l Electrical Contractor  –\u00ab .. <\/p>\n
under the name and style of Progressive  <\/p>\n
worthy of acceptance is produced  establish the said  <\/p>\n
though has categorically stated  has KS’!.’V_  V<\/p>\n
and in the re-examination ‘has   nurnc-ers’VVin Ex.P.12
\nwhich is suited to be the   in respect of the
\ndeceased Narayena  numbers of the
\nconcern. ereg’not’\u00bbmeiiitioned:.;\u00a7  certi\ufb01cate Ex.P.12 and the
\noral evidonrie  ‘document is produced before the
\nCourt to   that he is a Class-l contractor
\nand ‘under hirn”‘  Vxclecieased was working as Electrician. As<\/p>\n
   are deceased had no speciai quali\ufb01cation to work<\/p>\n
 a:_s\u00ab._E_iectvricia:ri.’ i–io has studied only upto ssi.c. Though PW2<\/p>\n
states \ufb02jrat riioiias maintained all use records to show that the<\/p>\n
   deoeasediwas working under him as Eiectrician, no each document<\/p>\n
 .prcduced before the Court. According to PW.1, her husband<\/p>\n
. it   was also doing milk-vending business apart from agriculture. If the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW.1 that the deceased was carrying on milk vending<\/p>\n
business and also agriculture. we wonder as to how he could have<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
had lime lao work as Electrician on regular basis. According to
\nF’W.2. the working hours of his concern was between 9.30 to 5.30
\nPM. As admitted by PW2, the deceased was swing amigo<\/p>\n
Krns. away from the place of work. It is also ” <\/p>\n
believe that to work as Eieclrician no special  V<\/p>\n
required. in me absence of any eocepfehle’  <\/p>\n
dif\ufb01cult to place reliance on the evidencek’ __  _zof  <\/p>\n
cemncam at Ex.P.12. Under tl:ee:e””circun1st=encee;_;  no ” V<\/p>\n
substance in the contention of_.iti1e.leemed  for the
\nappellant-claimants that the  ‘ing as Elwtrich n
\nunder PW.2 and wee’gettin;\ufb01eelenr or nfs,e.ooo;;apan: from R550!-<\/p>\n
Per lhat the Triburml without
\nproperly evidence has come<\/p>\n
to the wrong claimants have proved that the<\/p>\n
 V.   We are at loss to know as
\n   could mice Rs.4,000I- as salary from the work
\nlee  the claimants contended that the deceased<\/p>\n
V V . was”‘”earri-inTg”l’\u00a7s.6.000I- per month as salary and adduced oral<\/p>\n
  .Vicvidence””‘t\u00a71rough PW.2 and produced documenmry evidence<\/p>\n
  to prove the said fact. Therefore. we are of the
\n  .\u00bbconsidered opinion that the \ufb01nding of the Tribunal that the<\/p>\n
‘V deceased was working es en Electrician and that he was getting a<\/p>\n
; sum of Rs.4,000l- as salary from the said work is erroneous.<\/p>\n
Therefore, we are not inclined to consider any income from the<\/p>\n
alleged work as Electrician.\n<\/p>\n
Re: lncgw \ufb01om Milk veggjm: PW.1 in hef–‘..’\u00a2:):l’3lv  <\/p>\n
has stated that her husband used to supply.milk.’_’to”the–dai’ry  M’ ‘a<\/p>\n
village from 5.30 to 6.30 AM and froi1t*tl1e’_’_’miiVk xieneiioe <\/p>\n
he was earning a sum of Rs.5,0\u00a3lt)io..i3er moose.  <\/p>\n
examination, more is nothing  her * in this
\nregard. one Narayanav  been  to subsmntiate
\nthe contention of thevclaimsnts.  to sell milk.
\nPWA has  hehas been working as
\nSecretary in:   at Jattagondanahalii and
\nhe     According to him, the
\ndeceased  to _:Lts.;”every day to the said Society. He
\nhas fizrdier  that the deceased used to come to the Society in<\/p>\n
 V’  . ttie’:e,;rioi:ning’i– was sending his servant in the evening<\/p>\n
   a.  him. the deceased had four cows. He has<\/p>\n
toes  iiiai he joined the Society in 1997 and even before<\/p>\n
 iiieitilelicieoeaseo was selling milk to the society. He has further<\/p>\n
A if  that the Society used to make payments to the deceased in<\/p>\n
it every fortnight and total amount approximately paid to the<\/p>\n
it  deceased by the Society was Rs.4,000I- per month. According to<\/p>\n
him, the wife of the deceased sold away the cows after the death of<\/p>\n
the deceased. According to him. Ex.P.13 is the passbook that was<\/p>\n
issued by the Society to the dmased and entries therein are made
\nby him. He has further stated mat Exs.P.14 to P20″ <\/p>\n
coupons issued by the Society to the deceasw <\/p>\n
regarding supply of milk. According to him. the    l <\/p>\n
Society by passing resolution aPl30irr_ted :h4ir’r:_ es <\/p>\n
effect from 11.4.1997 and a oepy   <\/p>\n
marked as Ex.P.30. The paymorr\ufb01rogistor ror  it<\/p>\n
was also marked as  j\u00e9 has”  cross\u00bb
\nexamined by the teamed for  No.1-Insurer.<\/p>\n
There is nothing   to disbelieve his
\nevidence.     Secretary of the Co-\n<\/p>\n
operative    “_”His;evidenm that the deceasw
\nwas   ” has not been seriously
\nohallengedV@–.._VThe PW2 in his regard is corroborated<\/p>\n
 byv_\u00bb\u00bbtheV:_doeumeniery_____eyidence namely passbook Ex.P.13 and<\/p>\n
o supgly eards .jEse.P.14 to P20. Ex.P.21 is the oorimmo issued by<\/p>\n
 tile-.iieteuiinery’lirlebamnent in favour of the dmeased for having<\/p>\n
  the Cattle Show held in Mudhsandre during the year<\/p>\n
i.    Thus, the oral and documentary evidence clearly establish<\/p>\n
‘  deceased was carrying on milk vending business by raring<\/p>\n
   -milking cows and he was getting not less than Rs.4,000l- from sale<\/p>\n
of milk. There are no reasons to reject this evidence. There is<\/p>\n
nothing unnatural for a person residing in rural area to mate<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
multifarious activities to earn money for the maintenance of himself<\/p>\n
and his family members. Therefore. we are of the considereidview<\/p>\n
that the appellants have satisfactorily established that <\/p>\n
was carrying on milk vending business. The Tribunal  _  <\/p>\n
Rs.2.000I- as the income from the miltlyending  Vii-tavingz<\/p>\n
regard to the facts and circumstances    <\/p>\n
the evidence produced. we are of’._conside;ted~ it is just” V<\/p>\n
and reasonable to take  ineeme.”y_:ef”‘d1_e deceaseeifrom milk
\nvending business at Rs.lt.0l?0~’-l’ meeting all the<\/p>\n
expenses incurred by him’in’th\u00a7s;bus5riess.V I   l<\/p>\n
=    lt_is= in the evidence or PW.1
\nthat      pa from agricultural
\nlands. in’ the cress;je>:arr*.i:rfi’atien, only suggestion put to her was<\/p>\n
that the deceased .v’vas”vnot””‘getting Rs.40,000I- p.a as agricultural<\/p>\n
 V’  .  PW.3-V$”ha’dra’ Raddy has been examined to prove that<\/p>\n
   agriculturist. PW.3 in his oral evidence has<\/p>\n
   the deceased Narayana Roddy. According to<\/p>\n
 this he has been cultiva\ufb01ng the land of Narayana Reddy<\/p>\n
it * iaseer the request of the wife at Narayana Reddy after his death.<\/p>\n
 has further stated that 4 acres of land stands in the name of<\/p>\n
‘V V’ “Narayana Reddy and he did not know the survey numbers of land.<\/p>\n
He has further stated that there is a bore-well in the land, mulberry<\/p>\n
crop is grown in the land. According to him. he gets the work done<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
deoeased can be safely be taken at Rs.6,090I- per month from all<\/p>\n
the source as discussed above.\n<\/p>\n
17. The deceased has let: behind his wire egeeeeeeieeei <\/p>\n
years two minor daughters aged 9 and 2 yearsfiandi K TV<\/p>\n
about 60 years. From the evidence oni\u00b0reco.rd.’ivit .<\/p>\n
deceased was an hardworker hdVi:i:’l’\u00a7V_muflAi:fafi0tz$VV Therev  T’<\/p>\n
is no indication in the evidence that~th’evdeoeased’viiasA apvsiipendtiirift.
\nApart from maintaining  to maintain his
\nwife. two minor \u00e9daiighteis’ ‘anii:: ” ‘Therefore, having
\nregard to  we jare  considered opinion
\nthat  to be deducted
\ntowards his  _  Thus, the monthly loss of
\noontribuitiienjito the out at Rs.4.500I- and annual loss<\/p>\n
weiicseni ei  Ae noticed above. the Tribunal for finding<\/p>\n
  Viapiorepiiaie rnvuiiiplier has mken the average age of the<\/p>\n
   mother. in our considered view, this method<\/p>\n
adopted  Tribunal is erroneous. When the dmased has left<\/p>\n
 AA behind__his wife and two minor daughters apart from the mother, for<\/p>\n
  of \ufb01nding out the appropriate multiplier to quantify the<\/p>\n
 loss of dependency. the age of the deceased alone is relevant.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in applying the
\nmultiplier of 11 by taking the average age of the deceased and his<\/p>\n
mother. According to the PM report-Ex.P.5, the age of the<\/p>\n
deceased was 37 years. The contentions of PM report haye not
\nbeen seriously challenged. Therefore. the age of the <\/p>\n
can safely be taken as 37 years. The appropriate’  <\/p>\n
applicable to the age of the deeeasw is 15. Thue\u00abttie:~tet:el::iess  u .. <\/p>\n
dependency works out to Rs.8.10,000i;g’ pea izmiwe<\/p>\n
appeliantsclaimants are enti\ufb02edefor \ufb02iiearnount  tine head’  -‘<\/p>\n
‘loss of dependency’.\n<\/p>\n
18. The Tribunal   . .Rs.5,000I- towards
\nfuneral expenses, gRs.10,\u20ac)0e!;_  “eetate, Rs.5.0001.<\/p>\n
towards loss   loss of \ufb01lial
\niove and    awarded Rs.30.000,’.\n<\/p>\n
under In  opinion, the compensation
\nawardecivuncler  “funeral expenses and less of<\/p>\n
consortium is”onV_the.lowei’.  and under each of these two heads,<\/p>\n
 game are ‘er\ufb01tied to Rs.’l0,000!~. The award of<\/p>\n
 1’Rti.il\ufb02i,O39l4ltl\ufb01d:eft”i1e head loss of estate, Rs.’l0,000l– towards loss<\/p>\n
of \ufb01lial Ioxre ‘enjdatfec\ufb01on are just and proper and there is no scope<\/p>\n
 for enhancem” : ‘lent. Thus. the claimants are entitled. ‘ for total<\/p>\n
 V’ .eompensation of Rs.8.50,000I-. The Tribunal has granted lntermt<\/p>\n
—   on the compensation amount. This being a death case,<\/p>\n
i   are of the considered opinion mat the rate of interest awarded at<\/p>\n
6% pa. is jut and proper and there is no scope for enhancing the
\nrate of interest.\n<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
19. In the light of the above discussion, the appeal filed by
\nthe claimants in MFA No.4238l2OOC3 is allowed in part enheaeing<\/p>\n
the compensation to Rs.8.50.000I- as against ti1e_:m’ew!\u00e9ard__ji. at _<\/p>\n
Rs.6.90,000l- by me Tribunal. The enhanced’:   <\/p>\n
Rs.1,60.000I- shalt any interest at 6%   the deteief  <\/p>\n
tilithe dateofpayment. V 4_ _v u  S<\/p>\n
The respondent No.1-Orieittttii insufattee  is
\ndirecmd to deposit the   interest
\nand costs within eight weeke   of the copy of
\nthis order.  apportioned and
\ndisbursed to  proportion as directed by
\nthe Tribuna|~,.  it _   it <\/p>\n
the ap4pee|T\ufb01!fedt::b3iJtite””irtsiirer in MFA No.4349l20OB is
\ndismissed   V’  i  4′<\/p>\n
S\ufb01fwi
\nIi.i.&\u00a7:\u00a7’\u00e9:;’\u00a7<\/p>\n
gig-i:\u00a7fm
\nIu\ufb01igy\u00e9<\/p>\n
 i  mv*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt T Munitayamma vs Oriental Insurance Co on 5 June, 2008 Author: Manjula Chellur K.N.Keshavanarayana IN THE HTGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DATED THIS THE 5?” {DAY OF JUNE 2008 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRSJUSTECE MANJULA T. AND THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE K.N.:KESHAyANARA$Aj5sA T T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL N%\u00a7.4238!’2Q\u00a7)@(Mv)’~ _ , , T cxw. […]<\/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-195437","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt T Munitayamma vs Oriental Insurance Co on 5 June, 2008 - 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-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt T Munitayamma vs Oriental Insurance Co on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-08T18:13:04+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=\"22 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-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt T Munitayamma vs Oriental Insurance Co on 5 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-08T18:13:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4059,\"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-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Smt T Munitayamma vs Oriental Insurance Co on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-08T18:13:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt T Munitayamma vs Oriental Insurance Co on 5 June, 2008\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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 T Munitayamma vs Oriental Insurance Co on 5 June, 2008 - 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-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt T Munitayamma vs Oriental Insurance Co on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-08T18:13:04+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt T Munitayamma vs Oriental Insurance Co on 5 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-08T18:13:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008"},"wordCount":4059,"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-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008","name":"Smt T Munitayamma vs Oriental Insurance Co on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-08T18:13:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-t-munitayamma-vs-oriental-insurance-co-on-5-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt T Munitayamma vs Oriental Insurance Co on 5 June, 2008"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/195437","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=195437"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195437\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}