{"id":54332,"date":"2011-04-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-11-15T03:25:39","modified_gmt":"2017-11-14T21:55:39","slug":"nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Nagarajappa vs Divnl.Manager,Oriental … on 11 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Nagarajappa vs Divnl.Manager,Oriental … on 11 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Ganguly<\/div>\n
Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly<\/div>\n
                                                                  REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n\n             CIVIL APPEAL NO.3203       OF 2011\n\n(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.6128\/2010)\n\n\n\n\n\nSri Nagarajappa                                ...Appellant(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n                            - Versus -\n\n\n\n\n\nThe Divisional Manager,                        ...Respondent(s)\n\nThe Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.\n\n\n\n\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
GANGULY, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.    Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.    On   13.08.2004   at   about   6   p.m.,   the   appellant   was <\/p>\n
crossing   the   road   carefully   when   a   BMTC   bus   (bearing <\/p>\n
registration   No.KA-05-B-5245)   came   in   a   rash   and <\/p>\n
negligent   manner   and   dashed   against   the   appellant <\/p>\n
                                 1<\/span><\/p>\n
whereupon   he   was   admitted   in   hospital   for   treatment   as <\/p>\n
he had sustained multiple injuries.\n<\/p>\n
3.    The   appellant  filed   a  claim   petition  under   Section <\/p>\n
166   of   the   Motor   Vehicles   Act,   1988   claiming <\/p>\n
compensation   of   Rs.5,00,000\/-.   The   appellant   was <\/p>\n
working   as   a   coolie   and   claimed   that   he   was   earning   a <\/p>\n
monthly income of Rs.4,500\/- p.m.<\/p>\n
4.    The   Tribunal   concluded   that   the   accident   occurred <\/p>\n
for the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver as <\/p>\n
a   result   of   which   the   appellant   had   sustained   injuries <\/p>\n
in   the   accident.   On   perusal   of   evidence   it   was   found <\/p>\n
that   the   appellant   had   sustained   injuries   of   compound <\/p>\n
fracture   of   ulnar   styloid   process   of   the   left   hand   and <\/p>\n
subluxation   of   the   left   wrist.   The   doctor   assessed <\/p>\n
disability   at   23%   of   the   whole   body.   Therefore,   it <\/p>\n
awarded   Rs.20,000\/-   for   loss   of   amenities,   Rs.30,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
for   pain   and   suffering,   Rs.30,000\/-   for   medical <\/p>\n
expenses   and   conveyance   and   Rs.2,000\/-   for   future <\/p>\n
medical treatment. For loss of income during the period <\/p>\n
of treatment, the Tribunal found that due to the nature <\/p>\n
of the disability the appellant was unable to work as a <\/p>\n
                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
coolie or do other manual work. It also added that only <\/p>\n
the   left   hand   was   injured,   so   the   right   hand   was   free <\/p>\n
to   work.   The   appellant   was   an   indoor   patient   for   55 <\/p>\n
days.   Thus,   the   Tribunal   presumed   that   the   appellant <\/p>\n
was   unable   to   work   for   3   months.   Further,   though   the <\/p>\n
appellant claimed to be earning Rs.4,500\/- p.m., it was <\/p>\n
not   supported   by   documentary   evidence.   Hence,   the <\/p>\n
Tribunal   presumed   his   income   to   be   Rs.3000\/-   p.m.   and <\/p>\n
awarded Rs.9,000\/- for loss of income during the period <\/p>\n
of   treatment.   For   computation   of   loss   of   future   income <\/p>\n
due to disability, the Tribunal took into consideration <\/p>\n
that   disability   of   the   whole   body   of   the   appellant   had <\/p>\n
been assessed at 23%, however, his right hand was still <\/p>\n
free   to   work.   Thus,   it   assessed   disability   at   20%.\n<\/p>\n
Medical   evidence   showed   that   the   appellant   was   around <\/p>\n
55   years   at   the   time   of   the   accident,   for   which   a <\/p>\n
multiplier   of   11   was   adopted.   Accordingly,   loss   of <\/p>\n
future income was calculated to be Rs.79,200\/- (Rs.3000 <\/p>\n
X 12 X 11 X 20\/100). The Tribunal fastened liability on <\/p>\n
the   insurance   company.   Thus,   total   compensation   was <\/p>\n
Rs.1,70,200\/-   payable   to   the   appellant   jointly   and <\/p>\n
severally,   with   interest   @   6%   from   date   of   the   claim <\/p>\n
petition till realization.\n<\/p>\n
                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
5.    On appeal, the High Court enhanced compensation for <\/p>\n
pain   and   suffering,   medical   expenses,   future   medical <\/p>\n
expenses,   loss   of   amenities   and   loss   of   future   income <\/p>\n
as against the amount awarded by the Tribunal. For loss <\/p>\n
of   future   income,   the   High   Court   concluded   that   from <\/p>\n
material on record, the age of the claimant was between <\/p>\n
45 to 55 years. Thus, it took 50 years as the safe age <\/p>\n
and   adopted   a   multiplier   of   13,   income   was   taken   as <\/p>\n
Rs.3000\/-   p.m.   and   disability   @   20%.   Accordingly,   loss <\/p>\n
of future income was calculated at Rs.93,600\/- (Rs.3000 <\/p>\n
X 12 X 13 X 20\/100). Compensation was thus enhanced and <\/p>\n
awarded as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Pain and suffering                                 -Rs.40,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Medical expenses, nourishment, attendant <\/p>\n
Charges and other incidental expenses              -Rs.40,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Loss of income during treatment                    -Rs.9,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Loss of future income                              -Rs.93,600\/-\n\n\n\nLoss of amenities                                  -Rs.30,000\/-\n\n\n\nFuture medical expenses                            -Rs.10,000\/-\n\n\n\nTOTAL                                              -Rs.2,22,600\/-\n\n\n\n\n\n                                 4<\/span>\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
6.              Being   still   aggrieved   by   the   compensation <\/p>\n
awarded,   the   appellant   approached   this   Court   by   filing <\/p>\n
an         Special         Leave         Petition         praying         for         further <\/p>\n
enhancement of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
7.              Having gone through the records, we are of the <\/p>\n
opinion that Rs.2,22,600\/- awarded by the High Court is <\/p>\n
inadequate   considering   the   nature   of   injuries   suffered <\/p>\n
by   the   appellant   and   the   consequent   adverse   effect   it <\/p>\n
has on the performance of his avocation.\n<\/p>\n
8.              In   reaching   our   decision,   we   are   drawn   to,   if <\/p>\n
we   may   so,   a   very   well-considered   judgment   of   this <\/p>\n
Court   in  Raj   Kumar  v.  Ajay   Kumar   &   Anr.<\/a>  [(2011)   1   SCC <\/p>\n
343],   wherein   the   Bench,   comprising   of   Hon’ble <\/p>\n
Raveendran   and   Gokhale,   JJ.,   has   propounded   the   law   on <\/p>\n
compensation   in   motor   accidents   claims   cases   resulting <\/p>\n
in   disability   in   a   comprehensive   manner.   The   relevant <\/p>\n
portions of the judgment are extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
           “10.   Where   the   claimant   suffers   a   permanent <\/p>\n
           disability   as   a   result   of   injuries,   the <\/p>\n
           assessment   of   compensation   under   the   head   of <\/p>\n
           loss of future earnings, would depend upon the <\/p>\n
           effect and impact of such permanent disability <\/p>\n
           on   his   earning   capacity.   The   Tribunal   should <\/p>\n
                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
not   mechanically   apply   the   percentage   of <\/p>\n
permanent   disability   as   the   percentage   of <\/p>\n
economic  loss or  loss of  earning capacity.  In <\/p>\n
most  of the  cases, the  percentage of  economic <\/p>\n
loss,   that   is,   the   percentage   of   loss   of <\/p>\n
earning   capacity,   arising   from   a   permanent <\/p>\n
disability           will         be         different         from         the <\/p>\n
percentage of permanent disability. …  …”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
11.   What   requires   to   be   assessed   by   the <\/p>\n
Tribunal   is   the   effect   of   the   permanent <\/p>\n
disability   on   the   earning   capacity   of   the <\/p>\n
injured;   and   after   assessing   the   loss   of <\/p>\n
earning   capacity   in   terms   of   a   percentage   of <\/p>\n
the   income,   it   has   to   be   quantified   in   terns <\/p>\n
of   money,   to   arrive   at   the   future   loss   of <\/p>\n
earnings   (by   applying   the   standard   multiplier <\/p>\n
method   used   to   determine   loss   of   dependency).\n<\/p>\n
We   may   however   note   that   in   some   cases,   on <\/p>\n
appreciation   of   evidence   and   assessment,   the <\/p>\n
Tribunal  may find  that the  percentage of  loss <\/p>\n
of   earning   capacity   as   a   result   of   the <\/p>\n
permanent   disability,   is   approximately   the <\/p>\n
same as the percentage of permanent disability <\/p>\n
in   which   case,   of   course,   the   Tribunal   will <\/p>\n
adopt the said percentage for determination of <\/p>\n
compensation   (See   for   example,   the   decisions <\/p>\n
of   this   Court   in  Arvind   Kumar   Mishra   v.   New  <\/p>\n
India   Assurance   Co.   Ltd.<\/a>  [2010   (10)   SCC   254] <\/p>\n
and  Yadava   Kumar   v.   National   Insurance   Co.\n<\/p>\n
Ltd. [2010 (10) SCC 341].\n<\/p>\n
12.    xxx    xxx     xxx<\/p>\n
13.   Ascertainment   of   the   effect   of   the <\/p>\n
permanent   disability   on   the   actual   earning <\/p>\n
capacity   involves   three   steps.   The   Tribunal <\/p>\n
has   to   first   ascertain   what   activities   the <\/p>\n
claimant   could   carry   on   in   spite   of   the <\/p>\n
permanent  disability and  what he  could not  do <\/p>\n
as a result of the permanent ability (this is <\/p>\n
also   relevant   for   awarding   compensation   under <\/p>\n
the   head   of   loss   of   amenities   of   life).   The <\/p>\n
second   step   is   to   ascertain   his   avocation, <\/p>\n
                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
profession   and   nature   of   work   before   the <\/p>\n
accident,   as   also   his   age.   The   third   step   is <\/p>\n
to   find   out   whether   (i)   the   claimant   is <\/p>\n
totally   disabled   from   earning   any   kind   of <\/p>\n
livelihood,   or   (ii)   whether   in   spite   of   the <\/p>\n
permanent disability, the claimant could still <\/p>\n
effectively   carry   on   the   activities   and <\/p>\n
functions,   which   he   was   earlier   carrying   on, <\/p>\n
or   (iii)   whether   he   was   prevented   or <\/p>\n
restricted   from   discharging   his   previous <\/p>\n
activities   and   functions,   but   could   carry   on <\/p>\n
some   other   or   lesser   scale   of   activities   and <\/p>\n
functions so that he continues to earn or can <\/p>\n
continue to earn his livelihood.\n<\/p>\n
14.   For   example,   if   the   left   hand   of   a <\/p>\n
claimant   is   amputated,   the   permanent   physical <\/p>\n
or   functional   disablement   may   be   assessed <\/p>\n
around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a <\/p>\n
carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity <\/p>\n
may   virtually   be   hundred   percent,   if   he   is <\/p>\n
neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the <\/p>\n
other   hand,   if   the   claimant   was   a   clerk   in <\/p>\n
government  service, the  loss of  his left  hand <\/p>\n
may   not   result   in   loss   of   employment   and   he <\/p>\n
may still be continued as a clerk as he could <\/p>\n
perform   his   clerical   functions;   and   in   that <\/p>\n
event the loss of earning capacity will not be <\/p>\n
100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, <\/p>\n
nor   60%   which   is   the   actual   physical <\/p>\n
disability,   but   far   less.   In   fact,   there   may <\/p>\n
not   be   any   need   to   award   any   compensation <\/p>\n
under   the   head   of   “loss   of   future   earnings”, <\/p>\n
if   the   claimant   continues   in   government <\/p>\n
service, though he may be awarded compensation <\/p>\n
under   the   head   of   loss   of   amenities   as   a <\/p>\n
consequence   of   losing   his   hand.   Sometimes   the <\/p>\n
injured   claimant   may   be   continued   in   service, <\/p>\n
but  may not  be found  suitable for  discharging <\/p>\n
the   duties   attached   to   the   post   or   job   which <\/p>\n
he   was   earlier   holding,   on   account   of   his <\/p>\n
disability,   and   may   therefore   be   shifted   to <\/p>\n
some   other   suitable   but   lesser   post   with <\/p>\n
lesser   emoluments,   in   which   case   there   should <\/p>\n
be   a   limited   award   under   the   head   of   loss   of <\/p>\n
                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
       future   earning   capacity,   taking   note   of   the <\/p>\n
       reduced earning capacity.\n<\/p>\n
       15.  xxx         xxx    xxx<\/p>\n
       16.   …   …   Sections   168   and   169   of   the   Act   make <\/p>\n
       it evident that the Tribunal does not function <\/p>\n
       as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as <\/p>\n
       an active explorer and seeker of truth who is <\/p>\n
       required   to   “hold   an   enquiry   into   the   claim”\n<\/p>\n
       for   determining   the   “just   compensation”.   The <\/p>\n
       Tribunal   should   therefore   take   an   active   role <\/p>\n
       to  ascertain the  true and  correct position  so <\/p>\n
       that   it   can   assess   the   “just   compensation”.\n<\/p>\n
       While   dealing   with   personal   injury   cases,   the <\/p>\n
       Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a <\/p>\n
       Medical          Dictionary         and         a         Handbook         for <\/p>\n
       evaluation of permanent physical impairment…”\n<\/p>\n
9.           We   are   in   complete   agreement   with   the <\/p>\n
abovementioned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
10.          On   perusal   of   the   doctor’s   evidence   with <\/p>\n
respect   to   the   nature   of   injuries   suffered   by   the <\/p>\n
appellant,   the   appellant   was   found,   inter   alia,   to   be <\/p>\n
suffering   from   the   following   disabilities   as   a   result <\/p>\n
of   the   accident-   “gross   deformity   of   the   left   forearm, <\/p>\n
wrist   and   hand,   wasting   and   weakness   of   the   muscles   of <\/p>\n
the   left   upper   limb   and   shortening   of   the   left   upper <\/p>\n
limb by 1 c.m.” As a result, the doctor stated that the <\/p>\n
appellant could not work as a coolie and could not also <\/p>\n
                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
do any other manual work. The doctor assessed permanent <\/p>\n
residual   physical   disability   of   the   upper   limb   at   68% <\/p>\n
and 22-23% of the whole body.\n<\/p>\n
11.         The appellant is working as a manual labourer, <\/p>\n
for   which   he   requires   the   use   of   both   his   hands.   The <\/p>\n
fact   that   the   accident   has   left   him   with   one   useless <\/p>\n
hand   will   severely   affect   his   ability   to   perform   his <\/p>\n
work as a coolie or any other manual work, and this has <\/p>\n
also been certified by the doctor. Thus, while awarding <\/p>\n
compensation   it   has   to   be   kept   in   mind   that   the <\/p>\n
appellant is to do manual work for the rest of his life <\/p>\n
without full use of his left hand, and this is bound to <\/p>\n
affect   the   quality   of   his   work   and   also   his   ability   to <\/p>\n
find   work   considering   his   disability.   Hence,   while <\/p>\n
computing   loss   of   future   income,   disability   should   be <\/p>\n
taken   to   be   68%   and   not   20%,   as   was   done   by   the <\/p>\n
Tribunal and the High Court. Our view is supported from <\/p>\n
the   ratio   in  Raj   Kumar  (supra)   and   from   the   fact   that <\/p>\n
the   appellant   is   severely   hampered   and   perhaps   forever <\/p>\n
handicapped from performing his occupation as a coolie.\n<\/p>\n
                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
12.        Thus,   loss   of   future   income   will   amount   to <\/p>\n
Rs.3,18,240\/-     (Rs.3000   X   12   X   13   X   68\/100).   We   also <\/p>\n
enhance   the   amount   awarded   for   loss   of   amenities   to <\/p>\n
Rs.40,000\/-, as against Rs.30,000\/- awarded by the High <\/p>\n
Court.   We   also   enhance   the   amount   awarded   for   future <\/p>\n
medical expenses to Rs.30,000\/-, as against Rs.10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
awarded   by   the   High   Court.   We   are   satisfied   by   the <\/p>\n
amount awarded under the remaining heads awarded by the <\/p>\n
High Court and sustain the same.\n<\/p>\n
13.        The break-up of compensation is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Loss of future income                         – Rs.3,18,240\/-\n<\/p>\n
Loss of amenities                             - Rs.40,000\/-\n\n\n\nPain and suffering                            - Rs.40,000\/-\n\n\n\nFuture medical expenses                       - Rs.30,000\/-\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
Medical expenses, nourishment, attendant <\/p>\n
Charges and other incidental expenses-Rs.40,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Loss of income during treatment               -Rs.9,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
TOTAL                                         -Rs.4,77,240\/-\n<\/p>\n
14.        Accordingly, total compensation payable to the <\/p>\n
appellant   amounts   to   Rs.4,77,640\/-,   which   we   round   off <\/p>\n
to   Rs.4,77,000\/-.   The   same   shall   be   payable   at   an <\/p>\n
                                  1<\/span><\/p>\n
interest   of   6%   from   the   date   of   claim   petition   till <\/p>\n
realization.   We   direct   the   respondent   to   calculate   the <\/p>\n
amount   and   deposit   the   same   by   way   of   bank   or   demand <\/p>\n
draft   in   the   Motor   Accident   Claims   Tribunal,   Bangalore <\/p>\n
and   the   Presiding   Officer   of   the   Tribunal   will   deposit <\/p>\n
the same in the bank account of the appellant. If there <\/p>\n
is   no   such   bank   account   one   shall   be   opened   in   a <\/p>\n
nationalized   bank   and   the   demand   draft   will   be <\/p>\n
deposited there.\n<\/p>\n
15.          Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
16.          No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                   …………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                   (G.S. SINGHVI)<\/p>\n
                                   …………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
New Delhi                          (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)\n\nApril 11, 2011\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n                                  1<\/span>\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Nagarajappa vs Divnl.Manager,Oriental … on 11 April, 2011 Author: Ganguly Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3203 OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.6128\/2010) Sri Nagarajappa …Appellant(s) – Versus – The Divisional Manager, …Respondent(s) The Oriental […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNagarajappa vs Divnl.Manager,Oriental ... on 11 April, 2011 - 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\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nagarajappa vs Divnl.Manager,Oriental ... on 11 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-14T21:55:39+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\\\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nagarajappa vs Divnl.Manager,Oriental … on 11 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-14T21:55:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1976,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Nagarajappa vs Divnl.Manager,Oriental ... on 11 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-14T21:55:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nagarajappa vs Divnl.Manager,Oriental … on 11 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Nagarajappa vs Divnl.Manager,Oriental ... on 11 April, 2011 - 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\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nagarajappa vs Divnl.Manager,Oriental ... on 11 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-14T21:55:39+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\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nagarajappa vs Divnl.Manager,Oriental … on 11 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-14T21:55:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011"},"wordCount":1976,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011","name":"Nagarajappa vs Divnl.Manager,Oriental ... on 11 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-14T21:55:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagarajappa-vs-divnl-manageroriental-on-11-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nagarajappa vs Divnl.Manager,Oriental … on 11 April, 2011"}]},{"@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\/54332","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=54332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}