{"id":221170,"date":"2010-12-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010"},"modified":"2018-12-08T06:36:06","modified_gmt":"2018-12-08T01:06:06","slug":"the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Branch Manager The New India … vs K T Muralidhar S\/O Late … on 6 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Branch Manager The New India … vs K T Muralidhar S\/O Late … on 6 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: N.K.Patil And H.S.Kempanna<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, \n\nPRESENT\nTHE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K,pTAT_}TT   \nAND _  1 L\n\nTHE HCNBLE MRJUSTTCE H,S;KEMTRT*\\.HNA  \n\nM.F.A.NO. 7366\/V\ufb022'OO6[M'V\u00a7_ A \nBETWEEN:  V' 'V '\n\nTHE BRANCH MANAGER V ,   \" \nTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE;\"Co.._LTD..; ., \n\nDmS1oRAL..Q'RE1CE:; UDHAKAMARDALAM{oo'IY)\nTAMIL NADU NCsw.,VRERTD\"~*,3Y ITS\nREGIONAL\"MAl'JAGE-R, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE\nCO.L'I'D., REGIONAL\"\u00abO*F_FE-CE', \"UNITY BUILDING\nANNEXE. P \u00a7<:AE1NCA RAOROAD\n\nBANGALORE -- 560 027*  APPELLANT\n\n' ""{BY"SR1.A;AN.'zcRISHNA"SwAMY--\u00bbADv.)\n\n1. '  T ,Mi_J1%:Ai.,1D1~1AR\n'S\/C_LA'TE THIMMEGOWDA\nnOwi~AG-ED ABOUT 37 YEARS\n\n' ~ .--..R\/OSREENIVASA NILAYA\n\n\u00a7J\n\n. _ KIKKERE ROAD K.R.PET TCWN\n' MANDYA DIST.\n\nS RAHIM\n\nS\/ O SYED\n\nNOW AGED AB{)UT 41 YEARS\n\nNCL49. SUN MERE SILL SUNROCK HOUSE\nUDI--IAKAMANDALAM\n\n\n\n2\n(OOTY} TAMIL NADU STATE\n\n3. HI SHIVAKUMAR\nS \/O HANUMANTHAIAH\nMAJOR\nM\/S SHIVAKUMAR AGENCIES\nNO.1\/16'? CMC MARKET\nUDHAKAMANDALAM (OOTY),\nTAMIL NADU STATE\n4 MEENAKSHI \nW\/O N.THIMM'EGOwDA\nAGED ABOUT 52 YEARS\n\n5. NTHIMMEGOWDA  \nS\/O SANNA NINGEGOWDA  '\nAGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, \nBOTH R%IDENTS'Q_F'=. '_   \nHERAGU VILLAGE. DUDDA_H\u00bbOELI;__   I\nHASSAN TALUKANDH_\u00a3)IS1'RICT.  ";._;j,R"ESPONDENTS\n\n(BY SM:I.A.LI{}SIE\u00a7ARADA3,IEAV A ADI}: FOR C \/R-- 1,\nSRI.S.cIIETAN NA'G.,_--I FOR R-4 81 R6,\nSRI.IvI.N.'IvIAI)HUS_IIDIeIAI-II__gADV. FOR R-2 81 R3)\n\nTHIS  IS.".EIL'ED"\u00b0UNDER SECTION 173(1) OE MV\nAcT,;.AGAINsT 'THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED\n\n'JIV3O.1\u00ab1.a2CIO.5'PASSEDWN MVC NO.'792\/2000 ON THE EILE\n\nO}1'\u00ab.,'I'H_VEv..}\\(I1\u00a3I\\\/IBER, ADDL. MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA.\n\nAWARDIM} -  "COMPENSATION OF T4,20,000\/- WITH\n\n 69\/o'VP.A. FROM THE DATE OE PETITION TILL\n\n'I'~}~II5'3- APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING\n\nI " "  _II'IJIVAS_. DAY, N.K.PATIL J.. DELIVERED THE F'OLLOWING:-\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
This appeal by the i\u00a3}S1LlI’E?.I’ is directed against the
\ninI1mg’I1eci commtm jIIdgIT1Ent, zmci award dated<\/p>\n
30.]. 1.2005 passed. in MVC NG792\/2000 on the fiie Of
\n52′<\/p>\n
 ‘WM<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
the Member, Addl. MACT, Srirangapatna, awarding a
\nCompensation of ?4,20,000\/– with interest @ 6% pa.<\/p>\n
from the date of petition till deposit to the cIai1’riant~<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 herein on account of the  <\/p>\n
deceased Kavitha in the road traffic aecide_nt..,\\A’_: V <\/p>\n
2. The brief facts of the case:=,are,a4.s.ffoi1oi.irs”–:.\u00a7’  <\/p>\n
The claimant c1aimed.\u00bbti1_at   <\/p>\n
was aged about 24 years r1,i’nr1ir.n.g aigarnient shop,
\nwhich is a joint famihgwas hale and<\/p>\n
healthy prior to the aeeident. V  when<\/p>\n
the deeeasedavvaininegiv\u00a7}ith””~0thers was travelling in the<\/p>\n
Maruthi Ornni_Van.”‘i3’eariiag No.1\/{Ami 1954 from Hassan<\/p>\n
 towards ‘Channara7{a_p.atna, on the left side of the road,<\/p>\n
   ‘they___reached near Udayapura Petrol Bunk,<\/p>\n
  offending vehicle bearing No.TN–43~\u00abA~–<\/p>\n
jV8O0(:4\u00a7 earnexfrom the opposite direction in high speed<\/p>\n
A ..fand”‘in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger<\/p>\n
‘   life and dashed against the Marathi Van. Due<\/p>\n
 to which, the deceased Kavitha s1.zst.ained grievous<\/p>\n
ii1ju’ries and suctcrunibeci to the same. On aceoum: of the<\/p>\n
death of the deceased–Kavitha, the first respondent<\/p>\n
X<\/p>\n
 _ deceased;\n<\/p>\n
herein, brothereirylaw of the deceased. filed claim<\/p>\n
petition before the Tribunal against the insurer_.._and<\/p>\n
others. The T ribunal, in turn. after assessing <\/p>\n
and documentary evidence on record allowed”the.V.sarneif —<\/p>\n
in part awarding compensation”of”i3’\u00e9l,’2.O,_;0CV0\/\u00bb_\u00bb  <\/p>\n
interest at 6% pa from the date  the’vpe’titj\u00abpr\u00a7Jtill*.<\/p>\n
realisation. The insurer has*i:il*ed  the
\nground that the Tribu’n~a_l was”  jji1stifiedHi’n allowing
\nthe petition filed by the  .brot’Ijae_r\u00e9~in\u00ablaW of the<\/p>\n
deceased and;’it”=:;a.:111ot be –snstain.ed..ar1d is liable to be<\/p>\n
dismiss.ed–.as cannot maintain the claim
\npetition cla_i_4r1*1ing”  legal representative of the
\nV  ._Dv_.vringyythe pendency of the appeal, respondents 4<\/p>\n
and to be the parents of the deceased, have<\/p>\n
‘.Vfiledllllarr”application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to<\/p>\n
it  them as party respondents. The said<\/p>\n
‘  application has been aflowed after hearing the counsel<\/p>\n
 on both sides and also taking mm consideration the fact<\/p>\n
tliat, in the claim petition MVC i\\IO.l374\/2006 filed by<\/p>\n
the parents of the deceased before the Tribiinal at<\/p>\n
gg\u00e9w\u00bb<\/p>\n
\/ 9_.,\u00a2\u00ab””\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Hassan claiming compensation on account of the death
\nof their daughter~Kavitha and also on the basis of the<\/p>\n
memo filed by the insurer stating that <\/p>\n
No.79?!\/2000 \ufb01led by the 15′ 1’\u20acSP0T1d\u20ac1’1t <\/p>\n
been allowed by the Tribunal and the  \ufb01led”  l <\/p>\n
appeal before the High Court and therejfo4re,’:twoelairnss <\/p>\n
petitions cannot be maintained on7.t_h”e SEt.’~.,’I1’\u20ac’i,v*C3Vev111S\u20ac_3Vl\u00a7 of <\/p>\n
action, the said claim petition  been ldisposedvfgof.\n<\/p>\n
3. The learned codiisell forvithev.,a’ppellant–insurer,<\/p>\n
Sri,A.N.Krishnaswarny,. Aiaththe  v_sv’;’,i’i.;\u00a7,,t1iJitted that the<\/p>\n
brother;~in\u00ab.~laWV”oi”-..tl:e”deceased cannot maintain the<\/p>\n
claim petiti_or1_ “Section 166 of the M.V.Act on<\/p>\n
 accoernt of thel”deat_h__Aof the deceased who happens to be<\/p>\n
 .,.5;st.er=:i1i.,;laW contending that, the deceased, along<\/p>\n
 was running a garment shop in<\/p>\n
[the   style M\/s.BaIaji Garments, which is a<\/p>\n
V’ \u00abfarniiy business. He cannot be treated as the legal<\/p>\n
   the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal has<\/p>\n
 erred in awarding eo.mpezisat,ion to the brother-in-law.<\/p>\n
The parents of the deceased have been permitted to<\/p>\n
come on record as responderits 4 and 5 and therefore,<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
the mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation
\nand not respondent No.1 herein. He submitted that the<\/p>\n
Tribunal has rightly assessed the income voiiltehe<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
deceased at 33,000\/~ pm. He submitted;’_'”tlisst5.l.,:__b3_j_’*_<\/p>\n
deducting 50% of the income towards”1’1\u00bber::~.pers0na1:l4 <\/p>\n
expenses and applying the appropriates c.mti’itiipliVerl <\/p>\n
taking the age of the mother:-*V_at_V 48 years, coirnppcnspation <\/p>\n
towards loss of dependency__rIVi-ay be worl\ufb01ed out and
\nfurther, just and reasonablefcornpensation may be
\nawarded towards conVe’ntiohal’  modifying the<\/p>\n
impugned of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
4. The”leVar11_eld.:cotinsel for the first respondent,<\/p>\n
 _  lR.”E3\u00bbharadamvb_a,. interalia, contended by<\/p>\n
 sn.’b–stanVtiar,t’ing the impugned judgment and award as<\/p>\n
 as the Tribunal by assessing the oral<\/p>\n
‘land document.aIy evidence and other material on record<\/p>\n
if ll..jijhas”‘a..warded just and reasonable compensation to the<\/p>\n
‘  first respondent on account of the death of his sister\u00bb1’r1~<\/p>\n
if law in the road traffic accident on the ground that she<\/p>\n
was running a garm.en1’: shop which has been put up on<\/p>\n
.-‘\/ s-:\/’\/”‘<\/p>\n
(‘2<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
the basis of the investment made by the joint family<\/p>\n
members and therefore, he is entitled for comperisat’i.o’n_.<\/p>\n
Therefore, interference by this Court is not    ~<\/p>\n
5. The learned counsei for.;resp,oncllent,s”h.-4′  <\/p>\n
parents of the deceased, interalia’.contendled]t1iat; <\/p>\n
matter of fact, respondents–.\u00a7”~andA.”:’3__ hadclaim ll<\/p>\n
petition under Section.z166_.0f -th-ehl”M.V.Act’–.beiore the
\nTribunal at Hassan clairnirig on account
\nof the death of their  Kavitha as they
\nare the   When the matter
\nwas  -l the insurer has raised<\/p>\n
objectionshyi way.olfl,lii\u00bblir1’g rnemo stating that the claim<\/p>\n
 peti’rion \ufb01led respondents 4 and 5 on account of the<\/p>\n
   daughter is not maintainable as the first<\/p>\n
 has also filed claim petition, on the<\/p>\n
j same eatisellof action, in MVC l\\?o.’792\/2000, before the<\/p>\n
  Court and against the same, the insurance<\/p>\n
  has filed appeal before the High Court. In the<\/p>\n
  of the statements made in the memo dated 2,3.2()O7<\/p>\n
filed in MVC No. 1374\/2008 on the file of the MACT 81<\/p>\n
FTCAI at Hassan, the etition stood dismissed.<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
Thereafter. the application \ufb02ied by respondents 4 and 5
\nto come on record, before this Court, has been aliowed<\/p>\n
and they are permitted to come on record. ThereforTe;–,he<\/p>\n
submitted that respondent No.4-mother of  <\/p>\n
is entitied to compensation on account of of  b <\/p>\n
her daughter Kavitha and tkiierehyi ;\n<\/p>\n
common judgment and award_ of th..e””I’rib1_V11ia1  he <\/p>\n
modified by awarding  and_u’i”jrea;sonabIe
\ncompensation.\n<\/p>\n
6. After careful co.nsi,dera.tion”of submission of<\/p>\n
the cottnsel  insurer, respondent No.1<\/p>\n
and aiso   5, the points that arise for<\/p>\n
 consideration are \u00ab:5 A.\n<\/p>\n
 i} ._Wh’eth.ervt_he first respondent–brother in law of the<\/p>\n
 entitled to claim compensation on
\nit acicoiint of the death of the deceasedwliavitha, who<\/p>\n
it Vi”-..happens to be his sister–in–1aw’?<\/p>\n
‘  ii}; Whether the parents of the deceased are entitled<\/p>\n
t.o coinpensation on account of the death of their
\ndaughterw.K.avitha in the road traffic aeeideiit?<\/p>\n
7′. Re. Points 1 and 2 :m<\/p>\n
if,’ \/<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
The occurrence of the accident and the resultant
\ndeath of the deceased are not in dispute. Further. the<\/p>\n
age of the deceased and the fact that she is the sislt’er~<\/p>\n
in-law of respondent. No.1 and daughter of  <\/p>\n
4 and 5 are not in dispute. Respondent.c1la:1rnedpl”<\/p>\n
that she was running a garmentishopin the..nair1e’–ands .’<\/p>\n
style of Balaji Garmerits\ufb01whichl\ufb02is’ a  <\/p>\n
business, and it has been carried_oL1t”b.ased ion the
\ninvestinezot made by “t.h’e_joinjt1fainlirlyjnembers and
\ntherefore, he being the:.brotl’1er=ir1\u00a2_1aw oitlhe deceased is<\/p>\n
entitled,’ to’ c.lali:.:’:1′-.. The tribunal has<\/p>\n
entertailiedpthe  “o:lf:”_.*ewrespondent No.1 and allowed<\/p>\n
 the .\u00bbeilai1ri petiti’C>f1.e.l.1..1.eo.part and awarded compensation.<\/p>\n
 Howevepiasrightly pointed out by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the i1’i_st1r}}3r. the brothcr~i1’1–1aw cannot become a<\/p>\n
‘.Vlegallheir.1oflthe deceased as it is not permissible under<\/p>\n
V’ lfthel relevant provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and<\/p>\n
‘  also the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules and that he is not<\/p>\n
 entitled to maintain the petition 1,IIld\u20ac1’ Section 166 of<\/p>\n
the lVi.V. Act.\n<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
We find substance in the said submission of the
\nlearned counsel for the insurer. After careful perusal of<\/p>\n
the pleadings on record and after going through <\/p>\n
of the impugned common judgment and <\/p>\n
Tribunal, what emerges is that the  has’<\/p>\n
Committed error of law much less\ufb01rnateprijal’irregular’ity is f<\/p>\n
not assigning any valid .reasons,_land
\naccepted the contentions of thetirst.respondent and has
\nallowed the claim pe’tition.’l._ Tl;_1ere–fo’re’,’~i yve are of the<\/p>\n
considered View that respon\u00bbde’:1t’\u00bb._No’.’1llisfriot entitled to<\/p>\n
maintain the cvlaiifn,an’d therefore, the impugned<\/p>\n
common judgmerit and .award of the Tribunal insofar as<\/p>\n
 it relates to””i-claimant in MVC No.792\/2000 ie<\/p>\n
 brothVer:A_iI1:ia:Wof the deceased is liable to be set aside<\/p>\n
and  accordifngly set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Insofar as it relates to respondents 4 and 5,<\/p>\n
V’ lf_’pare’:.1ts “of deceased. as they have been permitted by<\/p>\n
‘  this Court to come on record taking into consideration<\/p>\n
 the averments made in the affidavit. and also the<\/p>\n
armexures, more partictiiariy the memo filed by the<\/p>\n
insurer, filed aioiig with the application, as stated<\/p>\n
\/’\/\/\/l<\/p>\n
1}<\/p>\n
supra, as already stated, their claim for compensation
\ndue to the untimeiy death of their daughter deceased-<\/p>\n
Kavitha in the road traffic accident is accepted ando’:th.ey<\/p>\n
are entitied to ciaim }ust and reasonable comvper1s.atiinf_r <\/p>\n
towards loss of estate and other conVentio_na,1_4_heads. ._<\/p>\n
Accordingly, we re–detern1:iney.the “‘co’r.r1pensattio.,r1s.’<\/p>\n
awarded by the tribunal towards ldssof desperidency;  <\/p>\n
taking the income of the deceVa’s.e’d at –  By
\ndeducting 50% of the._Rf’_ncome\u00bb  her personal<\/p>\n
expenses and applyingpithe japvpropriateinidltiplier of ’13’<\/p>\n
by taiging .tiie.VVa”g:g. ‘rnother at 48 years, we award<\/p>\n
?2,34,000’\/re_’ (:\u00bb1,soo,\u00ab;  x 13) towards loss of estate.<\/p>\n
 Further,’~ha?vingw-regard to the facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
 the cAase’,,:we_ deem fit to award a sum of “<'16,000\/-<\/p>\n
towards'  aC.or1Ve11tiona1 heads, to meet the ends of<\/p>\n
justice,\u00a37Accordingiy, in at}, we award a sum of<\/p>\n
 "..jij<'f2,'5C),O(iO\/- as against ?4,20,000\/~ awarded by the<\/p>\n
 Tribunal. The reduction in compensation comes to<\/p>\n
 w<'t1,70,()O0\/\u00bb which carries interest; at 6% pa. from the<\/p>\n
date of the pet..itton til} rea1isat.ior1.<\/p>\n
E")<\/p>\n
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed<\/p>\n
in part. The impugned common judgment and<\/p>\n
dated 30.11.2005 in MVC No.702\/20o0otyyi’isiij\u00e9feiiy-a.o”i–<\/p>\n
modified by awarding compensa.t:ion..4to .’respondei1t’S;p.  it<\/p>\n
and 5 instead of respondent l\\io.1.’Ai’ier’ein’:<\/p>\n
The appellant-insurer  ‘to  ‘lithe ”<\/p>\n
remaining compensation nopw””d.e_terininedi’ ‘with-“interest
\nat 6% p.a. from the   -till realisation
\nwithin four”    Tribunal. The<\/p>\n
apportionrrlent_”an’d3’m,ai1ner~ofdisbursement ordered by<\/p>\n
Tribunal is also ‘rrfio”difiecE:.””— ‘ ‘<\/p>\n
OutV”*.._4of_ “compensation of ?2,50,000\/–,<\/p>\n
  uiwith\ufb02 _____ proportionate interest shall be<\/p>\n
  name of the fourth respondenbmother of<\/p>\n
the  any nationaiised bank\/scheduled bank<\/p>\n
 for  period” of three years renewable by another three
\nit ‘V~:if’yearsAwith liberty to respondent No.4 to withdraw the<\/p>\n
l  interest accrued on it periodically.<\/p>\n
The remaiiiing Compensatiori ?50.000\/- with<\/p>\n
accrued interest shall be released in equal proportion to<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
respondents 4 and 5 immediately on deposit by the<\/p>\n
insurer.\n<\/p>\n
The amount in deposit by the ins1J.re_1j””sh;g_d’1:<\/p>\n
transmitted to the Tribunai forthxwjth.<\/p>\n
Office to draw the award aeieord-in 1   4′ V<\/p>\n
 3″L?1″)GE;\n<\/p>\n
PS<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Branch Manager The New India … vs K T Muralidhar S\/O Late … on 6 December, 2010 Author: N.K.Patil And H.S.Kempanna IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K,pTAT_}TT AND _ 1 L THE HCNBLE MRJUSTTCE H,S;KEMTRT*\\.HNA M.F.A.NO. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-221170","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Branch Manager The New India ... vs K T Muralidhar S\/O Late ... on 6 December, 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-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-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 The New India ... vs K T Muralidhar S\/O Late ... on 6 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-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=\"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-08T01:06:06+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=\"11 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-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Branch Manager The New India … vs K T Muralidhar S\\\/O Late … on 6 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-08T01:06:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1903,\"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-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010\",\"name\":\"The Branch Manager The New India ... vs K T Muralidhar S\\\/O Late ... on 6 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-08T01:06:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Branch Manager The New India … vs K T Muralidhar S\\\/O Late … on 6 December, 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 The New India ... vs K T Muralidhar S\/O Late ... on 6 December, 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-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Branch Manager The New India ... vs K T Muralidhar S\/O Late ... on 6 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-08T01:06:06+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Branch Manager The New India … vs K T Muralidhar S\/O Late … on 6 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-08T01:06:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010"},"wordCount":1903,"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-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010","name":"The Branch Manager The New India ... vs K T Muralidhar S\/O Late ... on 6 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-08T01:06:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-the-new-india-vs-k-t-muralidhar-so-late-on-6-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Branch Manager The New India … vs K T Muralidhar S\/O Late … on 6 December, 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\/221170","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=221170"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221170\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221170"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221170"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221170"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}