{"id":253606,"date":"2008-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008"},"modified":"2015-11-04T16:08:16","modified_gmt":"2015-11-04T10:38:16","slug":"the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Branch Manager M\/S Oriental … vs G Nagaraj on 18 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Branch Manager M\/S Oriental … vs G Nagaraj on 18 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A.S.Pachhapure<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nBATED THIS THE 18\ufb02!E&X OF NOVEMBER, 2008\nBEFORE:\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PRCHHAPUR$WfmI\ufb01_\nM.F.A. No.593O gg 2004 {WC} \"'\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nThe Branch Manager, : 3\nM\/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd;;.*\nBellary, 1 a\nNew represented by V\n\nThe Administrative Officer,\n\nRegional Office,\n\nM.G.Road, s. .n\"\u00ab,\u00a7 'a_ \"=.~\nBangalore--25. \ufb02_*a .1 5V a_,,; APPELLANT (S)\n\n(By M\/3.\"ALHnVenka\ufb01as\ufb01y\u00a7*B.$?5hivannegowda, Advs.)\n\nBE?'\n1. G.Nagaraj,'V,\n.-. sfo\u00a2\u00a7G.Krishna;.w\n'*Ag\u00e9d'ahcuta44 yeafa,\nV. 'E'X_VDriuver,.  \n'_R7og'N\u00e9ar~Cou\ufb01;ilor.\nKumaraawamy'a\"house,\nwa:d'No,17;g'\n_ Kottalapalli, Near N.N.Pet,\nv_Bellary;;\n\n_'Dr;.Lakshminarayana Reddy,\n'~'M}S.R.Hospital,\n\n \"\",H${N.Pet Main Road,\n\nV, Owner of Maruti Gmni Car,\n' Bellary. ... RESPONDENT(S)<\/pre>\n
(By Sri. Goda Nagaraj, Adv. for R1.\n<\/p>\n
Sri. M.S.My1ar, Adv. for R2 (absent)<\/p>\n
This M.F.A. is file u\/Sec. 30(1) of the
\nWorkmen’s Compensation Act<\/a> against the Order dated
\n11.06.2004, passed in WCA\/NF\/311\/2003, on the”\u00a7ile
\nof the Labour Officer and Commissioner for \ufb01orkmanfs
\nCompensation, Sub–Division 2, Bel1ary,_IAwardingin
\nCompensation of 513.2, 84,659-00 with intaresut Va.tV”’12–%”<\/p>\n
and directing the appellant herein to_..deposi.\u00a7 .the{ <\/p>\n
same. .:\n<\/p>\n
This M.F.A. having been he\u00e9pdf\u00e9no fe\u00e9efv\u00e9nifofi<\/p>\n
Judgment, this day the o_courto ‘prononnoed’ ‘the ‘v<\/p>\n
folloingz<\/p>\n
This appeals. is  the Order
\npassed by the \ufb01\ufb02i\ufb01nenis \ufb01omnonnnfion Commissioner,
\nBeuary. in i   dated 11 . 06 . 2004
\ngranting  H  _. .2, 84, 659-00 with
\ninterest ntJ12$ in fa\u00a7\u00a2\u00a7\u00a7\u00bb\u00a7\u00a3 the J?” respndent and<\/p>\n
directing the annellant \u00a35 pay the same.<\/p>\n
‘”.g; T\ufb01\u00e9 facts relevant for the purpose of this<\/p>\n
appeaifafea\u00e9svund\u00e9r:\n<\/p>\n
Tho I’? fospondent filed petition under Section<\/p>\n
::15o,”of,z the \ufb02brkmen’s Compensation Act<\/a>, 1953<\/p>\n
iioiinefeinaiter called as “W.C.Act’} alleging that he<\/p>\n
i \ufb01as””employed as a driver of the car bearing<\/p>\n
iajf\u00e9gistration No.KA 34*A–800l owned by the<\/p>\n
2113<\/span><\/p>\n
:respondent. That on 05.05.2003 whiie the car was<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
proceeding back to Bellary after admitting a patient
\nin a hospital at Bangalore, near Hirehalli, when the
\nvehicle was proceeding on the proper side ofajtahe
\nroad it is claimed that the bus bearing registretionK_
\nNo.KA–16–6989 came from the opposite faizeeiionl
\ndriven in rash and negligent manner and hit the oarJH
\nThe claimant\/respondent No.1 3sggg\u00a7ineai”\u00a7ri\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7.
\ninjuries and was treated in different hosnitelsk’ He
\nsubmits that he has ;spent:,\u00a7s;1;0Q,ObO4\ufb010A_towards
\nmedical expenses and” also feiaises’ that he is
\ndisabled to do any work; f:It is the farther case<\/p>\n
that he was pais Esf\u00a7,\u00a7O0LQ\u00a7 as saiary per month and<\/p>\n
batta ofh_ Rs.1GG%0\u00a7 oer \u00e9ay’and he further states
\nthat the aocidentioobarre\ufb01 during the course of his<\/p>\n
employment as dri\ufb01er of the Emirespondent herein an\u00e9<\/p>\n
iolaimee’ ieomeensation of Rs.10,oo,ooo\u00bboo with<\/p>\n
interest’andhoosts.\n<\/p>\n
Ink.pnrsnan\u00a2e of the notices issued, the<\/p>\n
iteeployer land the insurer appeared before the<\/p>\n
i4<\/p>\n
compensation as the driver did not hold any<\/p>\n
effective and valid driving licence to drive the<\/p>\n
Maruti Omni Ambulance and therefore, submitted _to<\/p>\n
exonerate him from the liability as there is hreeehu<\/p>\n
of the conditions of the insurance policy.er’.~eu<\/p>\n
it is thereafter that the eiaimeht led e\ufb01idenees<\/p>\n
by examining himself as Ri\ufb02rl end* the ~a\u00a7\u00a2\u00a2\u00a7rf;es
\nP.W.2 and in the evidence aebt marked fdoedeents
\nExs.A1 to 13, whereas.the res\ufb01ondent5 exesined R.W.1
\na V V i m % learned<\/p>\n
and got marked Exs.Rif’ahde’2;rd7enfhe<\/p>\n
Commissioner afte\u00a7._heari\u00a7g\u00a7:nh\u00e9feggunsei passed the<\/p>\n
impugned “wbrderi u\u00e9ranting ithei compensation of
\nRs.2,84,6\u00a79~\u00a70.0 VwiVth.”‘:~ivn’t.erest at 3.2% and holding the<\/p>\n
appellant responsible to nay the same. Aggrieved by<\/p>\n
rthe said :Grder’,,the. insurer has preferred this<\/p>\n
appeel;_ ,’a’<\/p>\n
4′!<\/p>\n
art L.heye heard the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
.rf_eepellant and the respondents.<\/p>\n
‘vi4;v:The points that arise for my consideration<\/p>\n
1. Whether the impugned Order imposing
\nthe liability on the appellant to<\/p>\n
04<\/span><\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
in the circumstances where vehicle was weighing
\n5,926 kilos and the vehicle is designed as a goods
\ncarrier held that it is a transport vehicle and the<\/p>\n
person is authorised to drive only’ L.M.VL ~sna} hex<\/p>\n
could be said to possess an effective _s\u00a7aif\u00a75iia.’~<\/p>\n
licence and that the Insurance Company cannot.escapecuV<\/p>\n
the liability on the ground of oreachzoftpoliey;iM&*Q’<\/p>\n
10. So also the learnee,ccunsei re1i\u00e9d\u20acheon’the
\ndecision reported in ,1LR l9e\u00a7h\u00bbKar. ‘2220.\u00bbfUnited
\nIndia Insurance Co. vttd..iYs\u00a7f’\u00a7etr5>Lakshmamma &
\nothers}, whereina thigh \u00a7onrtU held ;that a lorry
\nuniaden weight of \u00a7hich gees net egeeed 7,500 kg. is
\na light eotor\ufb02tehiclaiahd.it is also a transport
\nvehicle and a person she holds a licence to drive a<\/p>\n
light motor vehicles dis authorised to drive such<\/p>\n
igehicle” and the Insurance Company .is liable. He<\/p>\n
also relied span the decision of this court reported<\/p>\n
l7*in 2GOlVACJ:9l3 {New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.<\/p>\n
.-f}B,V.Paramesh~ and others], wherein the driver<\/p>\n
‘t possessed driving licence to drive heawy passenger<\/p>\n
‘”f;ye\u00a7i\u00a2ie but he was driving heavy goods vehicle<\/p>\n
Vi”\u00a2Annladen weight of both the vehicles exceeds 12,000<\/p>\n
Vi=::kg. and they both come within the definition of<\/p>\n
D4<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
‘transport vehicle’ and i1: the circumstances, this
\nCourt held that the person holding driving licence
\nof heavy passenger vehicle is nowhere debarred or
\nprecluded to drive heavy goods vehicle ,sndJJtheW_
\ninsurance company is liable. Furtherd in \ufb02the\ufb01
\ndecision reported in ILR 2003″ Rare llo\ufb01ll\ufb02l\ufb01nitedt.
\nIndia Insurance Co. Ltd.’ Vsljaslsl\ufb01ukharam i\u00e9s\u00e9l
\nAnother] this Court while considering the definition
\nof light motor vehicle held pthat_ it ‘incledes a
\ntransport vehicle or omnihusg_f$o also, the Division
\nBench of this court in the decision reported in ILR
\n2000 Kar. leogiit\ufb01rted India insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
\nShivanna and \u00e9t\ufb01etgj.\u00a7\u00a2$\u00a7eaeting the definition of
\nthe light eater vehicle gag held that a vehicle the<\/p>\n
nnladen weight \u00e9\u00a7,ehict does not exceed 7500 kgs. is<\/p>\n
lap light inotor\ufb02 vehicle and it would include a<\/p>\n
transport vehicle also. So also, he relied upon the<\/p>\n
x” decision reported in AIR 2068 Supreme Court 1418<\/p>\n
.-fj\u00a7N\u00e9tional.lnsurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa<\/p>\n
V[“ues\u00a7ri\u00a7f; Ors.}, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held<\/p>\n
. i”\ufb01hat the light motor vehicle covers light passenger<\/p>\n
Vh”d_carriege vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle<\/p>\n
Vfand driver possessing LMV licence cannot be said not<\/p>\n
to possess effective licence to chive matador van<\/p>\n
t4.\n<\/p>\n
\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
the licence at Ex.A10 Clause (d) deals with the
\nLight Motor Vehicles and a seal has been fixed<\/p>\n
stating “Light Motor Vehicle, Non~Transport’.W7,So,<\/p>\n
as could be seen from the licence iesue\u00a7.io\u00a2_x<\/p>\n
19.03.2002, the petitioner is entitled htg far;v\u00e9*i<\/p>\n
light motor vehicle, ncn~transpQrt. hltgia {elegant 7<\/p>\n
to note that the accident in qaestion occnrred\ufb01on’<\/p>\n
05.05.2003, whereas the decisions referred;te above
\nare much earlier to the amendment to the M.V. Act<\/a>.
\nThe Hon’ble Apex Court int; eeciaionmrehorted in CDJ<\/p>\n
2008 so 976 [New ,:nai\u00e9\ufb01’\u00a7\u00a7a$t\u00a7apce~ ca. Ltd. Vs.<\/p>\n
Roshanben.”Rahemanahax Fakir'”&~~another} took into
\nconsideration the’\ufb01ecision in AIR 2008 Supreme Court<\/p>\n
1418 and distingniehed:the~eaid case and observed;<\/p>\n
V 3″it”;\ufb01 was noticed that the
\ntr\ufb01icvisicne cf the Act have undergone a
\n‘.\u00a2han\u00a7\u00e9Q3 The definition of light motor<\/p>\n
vehicle? Vnould not include a light<\/p>\n
transport vehicle. In that case,
\nxkeepinsg in View the date on which the<\/p>\n
ceaccident took place, it was held:\n<\/p>\n
“From what has been noticed
\nhereinbefore, it is evident that
\ntransport vehicle has now been<\/p>\n
substituted for ‘medium goods vehicle’<\/p>\n
A<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
and ‘heavy goods vehicle’. The light
\nmotor vehicle continued, at the
\nrelevant point of time, to cover both,*W
\nlight passenger carriage vehicle aedu”i”
\nlight goods carriage vehicle. A d;i\u00a7e:’f’
\nwho had a valid licence ~to=.driveihai
\nlight motor vehicle, therefore, .was”
\nauthorized to drive :a light goods\ufb02d<\/p>\n
vehicle as well”.\n<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Apex Court in this decision took into
\nconsideration the, definition ref “t;\u00a75s\u00a7\u00a2rt vehicle
\nand where the driser wesiholdinoie”licence to drive
\na three wheeler}! as :\u00a3\u00a3\u00a2 hseidf licence does not
\ninclude thel driying ‘ofW \u00e9 ‘trahsport vehicle or a
\ncommercialg eehicle Sandi held that the Insurance<\/p>\n
Company is not liable to gay compensation. In para<\/p>\n
513,of_the \ufb02udgment; it took into consideration the<\/p>\n
aspects regarding the types of the vehicles and also<\/p>\n
iloAvto the amendeents to the M.V.Act and ultimately came<\/p>\n
7i to the concl\ufb01sion that the Insurance Company is not<\/p>\n
::liehle= in Ncase if the driver was not holding a<\/p>\n
V specific licence to drive the vehicle concerned.<\/p>\n
12. In the context of these principles, if the<\/p>\n
tfacte are looked into, the registration certificate<\/p>\n
reveals that the vehicle in question is an ambulance<\/p>\n
k\/\\<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
and admittedly it is a transport vehicle. _The
\nlicence issued to the claimant is in respect otaa
\nlight motor vehicle non–transport. He feasf not “_
\nholding a licence to drive a transport vehicle and eru.
\nspecific contention was raises \ufb02inj the {writtenh
\nstatement and the required docunents were ggaaue\u00e9al
\nincluding the driving licence iahdeh in lithe
\ncircumstances, it has to be hel\ufb01 that the claimant
\nwas not holding the proper ~licencei to drive the
\nvehicle and therefore, the insnrancextompany is not
\nliable to  :1”\n<\/p>\n
13.2 The ilearned–,coonsel for the respondent
\nfurther submitted that in respect of the claim for<\/p>\n
damages to the fehicleg the owner.of the vehicle had<\/p>\n
fmade a {claims before” the District Consumer Forum,<\/p>\n
which held that the Insurance Company is responsible<\/p>\n
i”.V_to pay the da\ufb01ases and that the said Judgment of the<\/p>\n
l, Qistrict Consumer Forum was confirmed by the State<\/p>\n
,hConsnmer Forum modifying the quantum of compensation<\/p>\n
tbs ans holoing the Insurance Company responsible to pay<\/p>\n
the compensation to the owner. In this context, the<\/p>\n
a”, learned counsel submits that when the Insurance<\/p>\n
V Company accepted the liability and did not challenge::<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
the Order of the State Consumer Forum, cannot plead
\nexemption from the liability on the ground” of<\/p>\n
improper licence.\n<\/p>\n
14. It is relevant to note that thialCoertiisn
\nbound by the decisions of the H\u00a2h?bie.3\u00a7ex<o\u00a7\u00a2;fla\u00a7a\u00b0.
\nnot that of the State Consumer Forunrl The nere facti
\nthat the State Consumer \ufb01ornm. held: tn\u00e9},ih\u00a7\ufb012a\u00a7ce
\nCompany liable for damages to the vehicle cannot be
\na ground now to hold that the fhenrahce Company is
\nresponsible to 'indemnify C;\u00a7e,j\u00a2iaim:5\u00a7\u00a7a pay the<\/p>\n
compensation -:tof:gthe_rgclai$ante:V In the<\/p>\n
circumstances{"7 taking \\_into consideration the
\ndecision referred_tohaboyeaand the provisions of the<\/p>\n
M.V. Act<\/a> and the facts on hand, I am of the opinion<\/p>\n
gtnat the ;nsurance”\u20acompany is not liable to pay the<\/p>\n
compensation ano it is the owner of the vehicle, who<\/p>\n
i*_V_has to pay the heme to the claimants.<\/p>\n
15g. Sol far as quantum of compensation is<\/p>\n
‘. concerned, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner<\/p>\n
‘No has ntaten into consideration the percentage of<\/p>\n
diaahility as 70% and rightly considered the wages<\/p>\n
hgloh the basis of the available material and adopting<\/p>\n
the appropriate relevant factor considering the age<\/p>\n
BL<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
of the claimant, has awarded compensation of
\nRs.2,84,659*OO with interest at 12% from 28.08.2QO3
\ntill the deposit. The perusal of Section ejhk\ufb01iiefs
\nthe W.C.Act provides the payment of cen\ufb01eng%%&pn\ufb02\u00ab,
\nwithin a period of one month from the eate in fair,
\ndue and the interest at 12% is payabie is \u00e9r\u00e9h tg\u00e9e
\nsaid date. In the circumstenoes;>the_clainent is
\nentitled to the amount of loonpensationitwihh 12%
\ninterest from 11.07.20\ufb01\u00e9 i.e.g one nonth after the
\nadjudieation of  the ‘claim hhh “t$\u00a7g Compensation<\/p>\n
Commissioner. ;”So; far? as’ the; eelenlation of the<\/p>\n
compensation*assessnent,of the income and adoption
\nof the relevent_faotorg the Commissioner has taken
\ninto consideration.thehe\ufb01idence of the doctor and<\/p>\n
has cone * to “‘a-_ right conclusion. In the<\/p>\n
Circumstances, vI answer point No.1 in negative,<\/p>\n
point Vegffirmative and proceed to pass the<\/p>\n
“‘f911ow:ng:;’i.?\n<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
–X hihe appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Award<\/p>\n
hR’\u00bb_u of \u00e9empensation passed by the Workmen’s Compensation<\/p>\n
\ufb02”;\u00e9onmissioner dated 11.06.2004 is modified<\/p>\n
exonerating the Insurance Cempany from the liability<\/p>\n
BL<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
and directing the 2″” srespondent to pay the<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.2,84,659mOO with interest at 12%<\/p>\n
frem 11.07.2004 till its deposit. After <\/p>\n
of the compensation amount by the Diree\u00a30;fE;S.R;e<\/p>\n
Hospital, Beliarya [2″d respondehg herein}; \ufb01\ufb01eee\u00e9mee<\/p>\n
shall be paid to the claimenpe fl’: e\u00a7espo\ufb01den\ufb01 <\/p>\n
herein]. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
Ksm*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Branch Manager M\/S Oriental … vs G Nagaraj on 18 November, 2008 Author: A.S.Pachhapure IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BATED THIS THE 18\ufb02!E&X OF NOVEMBER, 2008 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PRCHHAPUR$WfmI\ufb01_ M.F.A. No.593O gg 2004 {WC} “‘ BETWEEN: The Branch Manager, : 3 M\/s. Oriental Insurance […]<\/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-253606","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Branch Manager M\/S Oriental ... vs G Nagaraj on 18 November, 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\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Branch Manager M\/S Oriental ... vs G Nagaraj on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-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=\"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-04T10:38:16+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\\\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Branch Manager M\\\/S Oriental … vs G Nagaraj on 18 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-04T10:38:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1968,\"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-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008\",\"name\":\"The Branch Manager M\\\/S Oriental ... vs G Nagaraj on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-04T10:38:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Branch Manager M\\\/S Oriental … vs G Nagaraj on 18 November, 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:\\\/\\\/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 M\/S Oriental ... vs G Nagaraj on 18 November, 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\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Branch Manager M\/S Oriental ... vs G Nagaraj on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-04T10:38:16+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\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Branch Manager M\/S Oriental … vs G Nagaraj on 18 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-04T10:38:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008"},"wordCount":1968,"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-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008","name":"The Branch Manager M\/S Oriental ... vs G Nagaraj on 18 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-04T10:38:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-ms-oriental-vs-g-nagaraj-on-18-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Branch Manager M\/S Oriental … vs G Nagaraj on 18 November, 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:\/\/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\/253606","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=253606"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253606\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253606"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253606"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253606"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}