{"id":213270,"date":"2010-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-11-12T20:10:42","modified_gmt":"2016-11-12T14:40:42","slug":"sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sanjeev vs Prabhu Adinath Sannakki on 15 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sanjeev vs Prabhu Adinath Sannakki on 15 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Aravind Kumar<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\nCIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IRAWAD _ __\nDATED T HIS THE 15'\"! DAY OF SEPTEMBER,'v3G\u00bb1 O._v\n\nBEFORE \/2 \"\\ r:\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND _I\u00e9'.\"-*-.',.'*'.1_\\}'1f:;AVI{--.:::  V4'\nM.F.A. No.35s3\/20191 (M9)  V ' 'V\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nSANJEEV s\/0 S1-IIVAJI KHAMAKARV \n\nAGE: 18 YRS, occ: C.LEAR1'\\E.E:'R'QF TRUCK, \n\nR\/O ATHAN1, TQ: AT'};AI-:1, ;   \n\nBELGAUM \" \n\nV     ' g  ...APPELLANT\n(By Sri. HARISH S._M'1~\\.IGU\u00a7R ADvi0CA:fE FOR '\n\nSri. M B NAR<;';g.NI3 A--.p\\?Q"CAT'E)   \n\nAND:\n\n1. PRAEHU ADJRVNATH sANN_AI<K1.\nAGE:":MA--JOR,"C-'CCERl3USAIN--E'SS,\nR \/0 ATHANI, TQ3 .ATHA.N'I\u00bb\u00bb,\u00ab. \nBELGAUM   V \n\noREI3:iv1'?AL INSURANCE co LTD,\n Cm~' BRANCH OF'FI'C'E NO.2\nE 'SUEHASHROAD, LAXIVEIPURI\n rNE;;r'\\.R"UIVIATALKIES,\n*gKQLHRPuR-jV\n\n ?~'\n\nTHROUGH \u00abITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER\n, ORIE.N'1'AL INSURANCE CO LTD\n  AADIVISION OFFICE}\n INSHANBHAC} COMPLEX\n'  K-IRLOSKAR ROAD\n"BELGAUM.\n  RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
   Sri. IVIAHANTESH S HOSMATH FOR R1;\n<\/p>\n
SR1 H. T. JAGADEZESH ADV(.)CAT\u00a5i? F(f)R
\nSR1 S. SRISHAILA ADVCDCATE F()R R2}<\/p>\n
THIS MFA IS FILED U\/S 173(1) (JP MV ACT AGAINST
\nTHE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 14.03.2001 PASSED IN
\nMVC N().l4’7S\/93, ON THE FILE OF ADDL. MACT, ANEf);’ClVlL
\nJUDGE, {SR DN) AND ASST. Sl?:3SSIOi\\lS K.}Ul7)(V}E:,”‘A5T.I\ufb02’ANi,<\/p>\n
PARTLY ALLOWI N(.} THE CLAI M \u00a73E3’l’l’f’l_(f).l_\\f:’ \u00bb  ‘ <\/p>\n
COMPE}NSATl(f)N.\n<\/p>\n
THIS APPEAL COl\\\/EING ON ms HEARENG’ ‘*<\/p>\n
comm” DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING  ”\n<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT   A<\/p>\n
This appeal is by the claimantquestioning;  and A<\/p>\n
correctness of the award g3a.ssed,ii’i’ –I.\\i\/:\u00a3_:’.7(l\u00a7”-\u00bbI\\’l<}.1<3i7'5fA1993 dated
\n14.03.2001, not being satisfied'rW'isth3*icornlpieiisation awarded by<\/p>\n
the tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
accident that _occt;irredi’onQ11″.-Q5.lj993 at about 6.30 a.rn., the
\nclaimant soughlt for =pay.rrie;nt\u00ab.._ofJcornpensation contending that<\/p>\n
he had s1.1.f\u00a7<?rt*d ;je1fn3\u00e91ri'ent'physical disability' and was unable to<\/p>\n
 &in'c*–f1tit5tir<e:.l'l'Respondents appeared before the tribunal and<\/p>\n
coiiitelstczdort:h'e._13'iat1'_ci:. by filing statement of obj<:ctioris. On the<\/p>\n
 *.basis of plearlingis', tribunal framed issues for its consideration.<\/p>\n
~..i'_f–..Theree1fter;_claimant got himself examhicd as PW\u00ab1 and<\/p>\n
1' ex"3.–n1i.net\u00a7_\u00abtx\\='c) doctors as PWMS and PW–4 2-.-ind also examined the<\/p>\n
'"1-.g)l1xi}*11erj% of the ciffeiiciing vehicle in which the claimant was<\/p>\n
  traxrellingg and which was belonging to the saictl wit.ncss, namely<\/p>\n
1 PW-2. The 1"<?spii?2tl1’i1s did not leacl. any C’V1(‘1.{.?.\u00a7’](.T(.’ 21 nd the policy<\/p>\n
in <;ticst:ion issueol to the (')f{e'nc\u00a7in\u00a7; vehicle was got m.arl\u00bb<:ed as<\/p>\n
gg\ufb02… –\n<\/p>\n
:3:<\/span><\/p>\n
Ex.R-1. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record,
\ntribunal by its judgment, awarded a l(){Z-Ii t'<J1npe1is:ati0n of
\n390,584\/~ under the following heacis:- l\n<\/p>\n
(i) Loss of future income:  ;. it ‘\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Fracture of radius and aEna l _ it in
\nand for dislocation of.ri’gh\u00bbt.” _’ M ‘4
\nclavicle :   A’;  ”   f\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Mentai agony: :\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Medical exr3er1s\u00a2la””se;’..:.l” H\n<\/p>\n
(v) Loss ofea.r_ningsi:l”l_:’   lilV'<V'l75O\/-\n<\/p>\n
(vi) Boarding’ Ii.  32.500\/_<\/p>\n
-,”*irQTuA’i_’;\u00a7* iv Rs.90,584I-\n<\/p>\n
3. Heardjlthe le}3;Arne(i..adv0ea’te.s appearing for parties.<\/p>\n
4. Sri li-lalrish”Sr;.VNiaigL1r,.–~ learned cotmt-sol appearing for<\/p>\n
appellant wouild submit tlf1at~~-‘eompensation awarded by tribunal<\/p>\n
‘is_0n  lefaver sidellav-,d\u00ab\u00abeontends that clisabiiity considered by<\/p>\n
ltriibiinal.  r:mrary to ci0ctor’s evidence, since the doctor<\/p>\n
haslstated that ciairnant has suffered disability to an extent of<\/p>\n
55%. He. \\$>oL1ld submit that entire evidence when read together<\/p>\n
 A ‘J..V:’iGl3ilCVli”(.’;’lf3&1.I’l_’_y’ gt} to 5′-3l’lOW’ that functional (.\u00a7isz-i.l.)iii1,}-‘ suffered by<\/p>\n
—rrlaiinant is 1G()% and as such he contends t.1iat. tribunal erred in<\/p>\n
“~.asSessin,.; the loss o_f_fi…=.ture esarnirzg cafjacrify by–‘ l’Ej2l<lI1\u00a7~_\u00a7 disability<\/p>\n
at 30%. He woulci also e<)nt.end tliat tE'll)'LEl'1\u00e9'.1l aiuglii 10 have<\/p>\n
t.a\u00a7\u00bb:en the lI1('(.)]'T}(:3 of t}:2.e appellant. at ?l5,{}()()f– per anrmrn. as<\/p>\n
against ?'9UO,\/W per month and he seeks for enharieement. of
\ncompensation under above. heading and als<'} wider the heading<\/p>\n
loss of amenities.\n<\/p>\n
5. Per contra, HT. Jagadeesh, learned ec>L,.1r7–;:”;el  .<\/p>\n
for second respondent\/insirzrer wouldmeoiitendi”t’l1es’t.’.\u00a7i{idgmein\u00e9”<\/p>\n
and award passed by the tribunai is i11:_”‘C()~’:”iS{3J1anC\u20ac  “the<\/p>\n
evidence on record and contends that._iit d<)es" eaiii for".<\/p>\n
interference and accordingly, he iiseelis l"or'"e:_lis'r'nissal of the
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
6. Having heard the~1a:a.1fned-eot1iise1&l'(>r ‘parties and after
\nhaving perused_t_he Jfu’d.gmenti and aw.ardi’p’assed. by the tribunal
\nand aiso on perusal*ofithe”niiateriai evidence available on record,<\/p>\n
it is seen that’ doctor  treated the claimant has not<\/p>\n
stated ijnhis evidenieeiianything with regard to the percentage of<\/p>\n
 disabiiiity  by the claimant. The said doctor was the best<\/p>\n
 iwhlq-.s.,v:?{>t1Vl.dVhave spoken to about the disability suffered<\/p>\n
and he_ Co};1id_vii1:iave also stated the ;3ereen1.agge of disabiiity that<\/p>\n
it “~._e’iaimanthHas suffered. However, he has not chosen to do so. Be<\/p>\n
l  _\u00bbas’;it inaly, claimant had obtained the disal:)i.ii.ty certificate<\/p>\n
 —–_w\u00a7”1i.eh is at Ex.F’\u00ab3S to establish  to what was the extent of<\/p>\n
. 4;disa.b\u00a71it_\\;’ st.1l’fe’retl h_\\;’ him and what was the. pc:r1:e1’1tage of<\/p>\n
LllS&1btli{},-“‘ suffered, ttmimant has examined one Dr, Mohan i}3ab%.1<\/p>\n
‘I’i,11~;.ade, as PW\u00ab4. The said witness has st;.:’it.(‘:t.i ihat permanent:<\/p>\n
physical disability that claimant has suffered to the left upper
\nlimb was 55% and he has also stated that there is 20%<\/p>\n
moderate restruction of wrist moverrient and 25% for defor,rriity<\/p>\n
and restruction of thumb and \ufb01ngers and 10% for nt’\u00a7n\u00a5u\u00abifi_iori” <\/p>\n
alna. Further, he has also admitted in the cross.V.e\u00a7<:air1–ir1ationii'<\/p>\n
that he has not treated the claimant. He had seen  f<\/p>\n
only at the time of issuing disability\ufb02 Certificate has
\nstated. that with the help of right–ha'i1.d,trtlyaimanltjcai\ufb01  in a
\nvehicle by clinging to bars,':h..e   bucket.\n<\/p>\n
Though, Sri Harish S. Maigur, disability is to
\nbe taken at 100″\/’o,\u00a7.saiiie’–cari;Anoti   yiew of the over”
\nwhelrning evidez1eeii’:b_{~,.1j on record. The<\/p>\n
tribunal has  d\u00abi_s”abili-ty at 30% to the whole body
\nand awarded, iconipensation’–.._Viiori the basis of the same.<\/p>\n
Considering the rriedie’aI evidence available on record, and after<\/p>\n
gg .?.grus’ed the photographs of the claimant at Exs.P~31 and<\/p>\n
32iia.nd_i.the.,disa’biii’ity}~certificate at Ex.Pw35, this Court is of the<\/p>\n
i”=”eorisidered viewiithat the disability that can be assessed cannot<\/p>\n
-\u00abi.i’_f:..exce,ed beyond 40%. If each of disability as assessed by the<\/p>\n
 doctor.\/l3ilW–4 is ta.l<en, the whole body disability at 1\/31"} would<\/p>\n
36% which can be rounded off to 40%. Accordingly,<\/p>\n
 ._permanent physical disability is fixed at 40%.
\n5<\/span><\/p>\n
:6:<\/span><\/p>\n
7. In so far as the income, that has been taken by the
\ntribunal into consideration for assessing the compensation, is in<\/p>\n
consonance with the avocation of the claimant, Va-‘hi<:hv.Vwas~.._e1<\/p>\n
Cleaner as on the date. of accident. Hence, the conte.n:t..ilor1\u00a7_of.{lira _
\nlearned counsel for the appellant that income claimant' <\/p>\n
could be taken at ?l:3,000\/- per anntiprn i-sen\/'itl1oii.tl'any7'basis\u00bbl<\/p>\n
and accordingly it is rejected. The' income .of'?\u00b09OO3f\u00abl'i' 'perlmognth
\ntaken by the tribunal is hereby conlir'rn_le'd._<\/p>\n
8. The appropriate  to vbewaplpiied in the instant
\ncase by virtue of the dicta laid..down \u00abb}\u00bb;s,ptrie”apel\u00a7;”court in SARLA<\/p>\n
VERMA’s case bed’-’18f_.not””‘1’6’ as taken into<\/p>\n
considerationillliiiyopthe liTf;ribti’n_al( View of the same, the
\nCornpensatioin tinder the~.h’eading_.loss of future income requires<\/p>\n
to be reassesseCi–\u00ab.and. Vfe\u00a2\u00a2:npu.i;=,d, which would be ?900\/\u00bb\u00bb X 12<\/p>\n
.:'<vl_8 =  '- iiThi.S…Court having assessed the disability at<\/p>\n
4.0?\/o,;l'the -vcompeelrisation that becomes payable would be<\/p>\n
Rs.77'-,7t\ufb01()'\/ ~.lun_:V:ler'e:tll1e head loss of future income.<\/p>\n
9. it.lAl’:S seen from the judgment and award that the<\/p>\n
trivb}.:;na.ll”*~.’ha.s erroneously not considered awarding any
\n _c’ompen.sation L2{}ClC1′ the heading loss of amenities and
\n considering the injuries sustained and the ciisa.bility that has<\/p>\n
 occurred to {lac clairnant, it would be necessary to award<\/p>\n
coznpensat\u00e9en L.iE1(.’l.(“1” the headirig loss of cmzenities, which<\/p>\n
on
\nor<\/p>\n
according to this Cotirt would be a sum of 325,000\/–.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the same is awarded.\n<\/p>\n
30. The ciaimarit was an inpatient for 125 de1ys…ar1d:i~has<\/p>\n
taken treatment and by virtue of the injuries sustaiiiec}~,..’_’i*t-e_mas’ _<\/p>\n
confined to his house without carrying on ar1}’~–:tax{_r)’cVVe.tiori\u00ab. .oh-.,<\/p>\n
account of injuries sustained nameiy]frac_ttir3:e i’qf”left._u1nar arid’<\/p>\n
radius as also dislocation of right ciavi’ea1i,*~this [(3-otitrit is of theh<\/p>\n
considered View that ciaimant  be i\u00e9iitx-f2ir<;1–r\u00e9d  sum of
\n330,000\/– towards pain anioi~~.suffe'rfr1gii.\n<\/p>\n
11. The compensatiorrawarded  ._ tribunal towards<\/p>\n
medical experises  aE3y”sr11a’113}’ ‘1ow…….th.is Court is of the<\/p>\n
considered View VtVhiat”v.the\u00bbciaima1’:t.~ has to be awarded a sum of<\/p>\n
315,000\/– tznider i’the”.:’headii’imedical expenses, food and<\/p>\n
nourish\u00a77iei1.t and eoneeyarice in as much as the ciairnant was an<\/p>\n
 , iIi1i1ii>e.tiie”nt  aiiperiod of 25 days.\n<\/p>\n
 ;tiei*V’t1s2:i of the Exs.P–3f3 and 36 and the<\/p>\n
photogr-ap}<isi 'produced by the claimants, it is seen that the<\/p>\n
"iv.i'c1Laimant has suffered injuries, on accourit of which there is a<\/p>\n
siight–di's\ufb01g'L1re=;1tior1 to the right" hand, on aeeotint. of which, the<\/p>\n
 'po.ss'ibiIities of gettiizg married is aiso redticed and considering<\/p>\n
this aspect  also the  of the claimemt as on 'the date of<\/p>\n
a<:cideI1t:, a sum of \u20ac"*\u00a7t),0OU\/– deserves to he E1\\\\'I:t\u00a7"('i(:?('i tinder the<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
: 8 :<\/span>
\nheading loss of marriage prospects. Accc’)rdiii;2;}_v, the same is
\nawarcieci.\n<\/p>\n
13. in View of the above discussion, the jLtdgrri\u00e9in4t’i21nd<\/p>\n
award passed by the tribunal is modified and the ooiript:’ii-s:a’ti:or3\u00abA<\/p>\n
is awarded, as herein above, would be in modi-fic_\u00e91:tii<)n_'and iii.' "<\/p>\n
substitution to the compensation \u00e9.w.21rd,ti!cl be. erijtitlcd <\/p>\n
to is as followsr\u00bb<\/p>\n
(i) Loss of iutV:,5re iiiooriied  _
\n\u20ac900\/~ X ~32 X is it 40% .;j  t  _ ‘\u20ac77,760!-\n<\/p>\n
(ii) with a\ufb02f3″‘s’uff\u00e9’t7ihQ’:Q’,,. it    $309001-<\/p>\n
(iii).   of \u00e9m\u00e9niiieegi j; i 225,000\/–\n<\/p>\n
__(ivi)i  M.e_d’isaI ‘s\u00a7pe_nses, food &<\/p>\n
‘ _ nou’rish:n_.\u00e9nti ‘oonveyance,<\/p>\n
V t’tan’sp’o{tat.ion & attendant\n<\/p>\n
– oha_rge_S:=…~’ ?15,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
  (y) i”Las._S__Qfmarriage prospects: ?’10,000i-
\nTOTAL: 31,57,760!-\n<\/p>\n
2:4. Sir; .\\riew of the above discussion: the following order is<\/p>\n
” If”–__pdassed:–  ”\n<\/p>\n
O R D E R\n<\/p>\n
(i) The appeai is aiiowed in part\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The judgment and award passed by the<\/p>\n
tribunai is modified and a compensation of<\/p>\n
?’i.57,”?6O\/A is awatdod in substitution to what<\/p>\n
at”\n<\/p>\n
t%<\/p>\n
has been awarded by the tr\u00e9bunai;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) The said amount shat! carry interest at the’
\nrate of 6% per annurn from the date
\npetition till the date of payment or;’_d’epo’s–it,: r.-
\nwhichever is earlier;  i it in i<\/p>\n
(iv) 50% of the award arrtount\u00e9jiis. csa\u00e9-‘r\u00a2d.:tc..
\nkept in fixed deposit’*.i’_nb:’*th.e nan_:e”of it
\nappeliant in ain_y”‘–~.nationaiised _ a”\n<\/p>\n
period of five  and  ._iaippeiEajnt is<\/p>\n
entitled to~withdra’\\5r per\u00e9odlicat interest.<\/p>\n
(V) The baian”c_:e’i’ :bord’ered:4.i’toi.’–be released<\/p>\n
_ En”fa–v_our\u00a5ofthe’_appet%ba_nt;u ‘ <\/p>\n
(v?’)’H deposit the entire<\/p>\n
..Jiit.am’5?:ghr ais\ufb02gwrardedii herein above, within a
\nV peri’o.d:iofvtodrwweeks from the date of receipt
\nof”ce’rtiffie.d””copy of the judgment and award<\/p>\n
” r_:befor’e tribunal;\n<\/p>\n
. E’…-LV’ir”fEviV”)’.”‘ No  as to costs; ‘
\nJUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sanjeev vs Prabhu Adinath Sannakki on 15 September, 2010 Author: Aravind Kumar IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IRAWAD _ __ DATED T HIS THE 15′”! DAY OF SEPTEMBER,’v3G\u00bb1 O._v BEFORE \/2 “\\ r: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND _I\u00e9’.”-*-.’,.’*’.1_\\}’1f:;AVI{–.::: V4′ M.F.A. No.35s3\/20191 (M9) V ‘ ‘V BETWEEN: SANJEEV s\/0 […]<\/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-213270","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSanjeev vs Prabhu Adinath Sannakki 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\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-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=\"Sanjeev vs Prabhu Adinath Sannakki on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-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=\"2016-11-12T14:40:42+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sanjeev vs Prabhu Adinath Sannakki on 15 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-12T14:40:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1952,\"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\\\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Sanjeev vs Prabhu Adinath Sannakki 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\":\"2016-11-12T14:40:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sanjeev vs Prabhu Adinath Sannakki 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":"Sanjeev vs Prabhu Adinath Sannakki 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\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sanjeev vs Prabhu Adinath Sannakki on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-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":"2016-11-12T14:40:42+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sanjeev vs Prabhu Adinath Sannakki on 15 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-12T14:40:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010"},"wordCount":1952,"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\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010","name":"Sanjeev vs Prabhu Adinath Sannakki 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":"2016-11-12T14:40:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-vs-prabhu-adinath-sannakki-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sanjeev vs Prabhu Adinath Sannakki 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\/213270","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=213270"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213270\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213270"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213270"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213270"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}