Partly allowed

C. Lakshmi Bai W/O Late Ningappa v. Jaganath S/O Vittal Shetty

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2019MFA/100237/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court enhanced compensation awards in motor accident claims, granting future prospects for the deceased earning member at 30%, maintaining the 50% personal expense deduction for a perpetrated bachelor despite a large family, and distributing loss of estate amounts to dependent mother and siblings.

What did the court decide?

Appellants granted enhanced compensation total Rs.4,93,600 with 6% interest for the deceased son, Rs.2,75,000 for minor children, and Rs.2 lakhs for daughter-in-law.

C. Lakshmi Bai W/O Late Ningappa Vs Jaganath S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.

¶8

M.F.A.Nos.100234/2018 c/w 100235/2018, 100236/2018 AND 100237/2018 (MV)

¶9

M.F.A.No.1O0234/2018

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

C. LAKSHMI BAI W/O LATE NINGAPPA AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,

¶12

C.MANJUNATHA S/O LATE C. NINGAPPA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,

¶13

C.SUMANGALAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

¶14

SMT.C.SHYAMALA W/O MALTESHA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

¶15

SMT.C.SHAILAJA W/O NAGARAJ, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

¶16

ALL ARE R/O: MALVI VILLAGE,

¶17

H.B. HALLI TALUK,

¶18

BALLARI DISTRICT-583212. ... APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI AMAREGOUDA, ADVOCATE)

¶20

A N D :

¶21

JAGANATH S/O VITTAL SHETTY AGE: 50 YEARS, WORKING AS LORRY DRIVER,

¶22

¶23

HESCOM-LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-02/6523, R/O: HESCOM QUARTERS, SIDDAPURA, (UTTARA KANNADA)-581355.

¶24

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE OWNER OF HESCOM LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-02/6523, R/O: HESCOM QUARTERS, SIDDAPURA, (UTTARA KANNADA)-581355.

¶25

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER HESCOM-LORRY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, BENGLAURU-560063, VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-02/6523. ...RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI M.B.KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI RAVI HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R3, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶27

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1006/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XIII, HAGARIBOMMONAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶28

IN M.F.A.No.100235 OF 2018

¶29

BETWEEN

¶30

C. LAKSHMI BAI W/O LATE NINGAPPA AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,

¶31

C.MANJUNATHA S/O LATE C. NINGAPPA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,

¶32

C.SUMANGALAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶33

SMT.C.SHYAMALA W/O MALTESHA,

¶34

¶35

AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 5. SMT.C.SHAILAJA W/O NAGARAJ AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE R/O: MALVI VILLAGE, H.B. HALLI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583212. ... APPELLANTS

¶36

(BY SRI AMARE GOUDA, ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND

¶38

JAGANATH S/O VITTAL SHETTY, AGE: 50 YEARS, WORKING AS LORRY DRIVER, HESCOM-LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-02/6523, R/O: HESCOM QUARTERS, SIDDAPURA, (UTTARA KANNADA)-581355. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE OWNER OF HESCOM LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-02/6523, R/O: HESCOM QUARTERS, SIDDAPURA, (UTTARA KANNADA)-581355. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HESCOM-LORRY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, BENGLAURU-560063, VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-02/6523. ... RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI M B KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI RAVI HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R3, NOTICE TO R-1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶40

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1007/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XIII, HAGARIBOMMONAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶41

¶42

IN M.F.A.No.100236/2018

¶43

BETWEEN

¶44

C. LAKSHMI BAI W/O LATE NINGAPPA AGE: 65 YEARS,

¶45

C.MANJUNATHA S/O LATE C. NINGAPPA AGE: 38 YEARS,

¶46

C.SUMANGALAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

¶47

SMT.C.SHYAMALA W/O MALTESHA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

¶48

SMT.C.SHAILAJA W/O NAGARAJ AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD ALL ARE R/O: MALVI VILLAGE, H.B. HALLI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583212. ... APPELLANTS

¶49

(BY SRI AMAREGOUDA, ADVOCATE)

¶50

AND

¶51

JAGANATH S/O VITTAL SHETTY, AGE: 50 YEARS, WORKING AS LORRY DRIVER, HESCOM-LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-02/6523, R/O: HESCOM QUARTERS, SIDDAPURA, (UTTARA KANNADA)-581355.

¶52

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE OWNER OF HESCOM LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-02/6523, R/O: HESCOM QUARTERS, SIDDAPURA, (UTTARA KANNADA)-581355.

¶53

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER HESCOM-LORRY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, INSURANCE DEPARTMENT,

¶54

¶55

BENGLAURU-560063, VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-02/6523. ... RESPONDENTS

¶56

(BY SRI M B KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI RAVI HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R3, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶57

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1008/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XIII, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶58

IN M.F.A.No.100237 OF 2018

¶59

BETWEEN

¶60

C. LAKSHMI BAI W/O LATE NINGAPPA AGE: 65 YEARS,

¶61

C.MANJUNATHA S/O LATE C. NINGAPPA AGE: 38 YEARS,

¶62

C.SUMANGALAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

¶63

SMT.C.SHYAMALA W/O MALTESHA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

¶64

SMT.C.SHAILAJA W/O NAGARAJ AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

¶65

ALL ARE R/O: MALVI VILLAGE, H.B. HALLI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583212. ... APPELLANTS

¶66

(BY SRI AMARE GOUDA, ADV.)

¶67

AND

¶68

JAGANATH S/O VITTAL SHETTY AGE: 50 YEARS, WORKING AS LORRY DRIVER, HESCOM-LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-02/6523,

¶69

¶70

R/O: HESCOM QUARTERS, SIDDAPURA,

¶71

(UTTARA KANNADA)-581355.

¶72

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE OWNER OF HESCOM LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-02/6523, R/O: HESCOM QUARTERS, SIDDAPURA, (UTTARA KANNADA)-581355.

¶73

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER HESCOM-LORRY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, BENGLAURU-560063, VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-02/6523. ... RESPONDENTS

¶74

(BY SRI M B KANAVI, ADV. FOR R2, SRI RAVI HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R3, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶75

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1009/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XIII, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶76

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶77

JUDGMENT

¶78

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. Notice to the 1^st respondent has been dispensed with.

¶79

The appellant No.1 is the mother of the deceased Sangesh who was said to have been employed as FDA in

¶80

¶81

the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest. On 08.10.2011, the deceased along with his wife and children was traveling in a Maruthi Suzuki Alto Car bearing registration No.KA-26/M.3728 on 08.10.2011. At about 2.30 p.m. when the vehicle was near Tumbragod village on Siddapur-Sirsi road, the offending vehicle owned by the 2^nd respondent bearing registration No.KSA/02/6523 came from opposite direction. It was driven in a rash and negligent manner endangering the life of the public. As a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, the vehicle dashed to the Maruthi Suzuki Alto Car in which the deceased were traveling. The impact of accident resulted in serious injuries to the occupants of the car. The son, daughter-in-law and grand-children of appellant No.1 succumbed to the injuries at the accident spot itself.

¶82

The deceased son of the 1^st appellant was aged about 42 years. He was drawing a salary of Rs.18,263/-. The salary certificate is at Ex.P.14. The

¶83

¶84

Tribunal after appreciating the material on record and after adverting to the various contentions raised by the respondents has awarded compensation as stated below:

¶85

i) Rs.15,60,000/- (in M.V.C.No.1006/2013),

¶86

ii) Rs.2,25,000/- (in M.V.C.No.1007/2013), iii) Rs.2,25,000/- (in M.V.C.No.1008/2013),

¶87

iv) Rs.3,80,000/- (in M.V.C.No.1009/2013).

¶88

The appellants being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the MACT are before this Court seeking enhancement.

¶89

Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation under the head ‘future prospects’ in respect of the deceased Sangesh (M.V.C.No.1006/2013) as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI

¶90

AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5147 . He

¶91

¶92

would also contend that the sum awarded under the other conventional heads is also meagre and requires to be revised. Learned counsel would further contend that the Tribunal erred in deducting 50% towards the expenses of the deceased. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SMT.SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 and as affirmed by the larger bench in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, the minimum deduction in respect of personal expenses of a married person ought to be 1/3^rd only.

¶93

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the accident or their joint and several liability to compensate the claimants reasonably. Learned counsel for the respondents would rather support and reiterate the findings of the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶94

In view of the above contentions, the point that arise for our consideration are as under:

¶95

10 -

¶96

Point No.1:Whether the compensation awarded by the MACT is just and fair compensation?

¶97

Point No.2:Whether appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation. If yes, what is the quantum of compensation payable to the appellants?

¶98

The contention that no compensation is awarded on the head ‘future prospects’, appears to be correct. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the said head. Further, the sum awarded under the heads ‘funeral expenses’, ‘loss of expectancy’ and ‘loss of love and affection’ appear to be on the lower side. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi supra, persons with fixed salary and self-employed persons are entitled for compensation under the head of future prospects. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of 30% under the head of ‘future prospects’.

¶99

- 11 -

¶100

As regards the contention of the appellants that the deduction ought to be only at the rate of 1/3^rd and not 50% requires to be rejected in view of the laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma supra wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 15 has been pleased to observe as under:

¶101

“15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family.

¶102

- 12 -

¶103

However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to onethird and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”

¶104

There is no doubt that the deduction is based on the number of living dependants and is not related to the family members of the deceased. In the instant case, the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the claimants 2 to 5 are not only majors but are married sisters and brothers and hence has held that they are not dependants on the deceased.

¶105

There is no doubt that the deceased was married. But, as on the date of the claim, the deceased son had lost his wife and children and hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, it has to be construed that the deceased has to be equated with the status of a bachelor. There is no dispute with the fact that the deceased had also lost his wife and children in the same accident on the same date itself. In that view of the

¶106

13 -

¶107

matter, we do not find any error in the judgment and award deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased.

¶108

The deceased was aged 42 years. The applicable multiplicand would be 14 and the future prospects calculated at the rate of 30% can be quantified as below:

¶109

Rs.18,000/-+30%=Rs.23,400/- less 50% =Rs.11,700x12x14=19,65,600/-

¶110

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,12,000/- towards loss of dependency. The enhanced compensation would be Rs.19,65,600-15,12,000=Rs.4,53,600/after deducting the amount already awarded. The award under the heads ‘transportation of dead body and funeral expenses’, ‘towards loss of expectancy’ and ‘loss of love and affection’ is enhanced by Rs.5,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively. In all, the claimants would be entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.4,93,600/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety three thousand and six hundred). Accordingly,

¶111

14 -

¶112

the claimant No.1 is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4,93,600/- with interest calculated at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. .

¶113

In so far as it relates to the minor children, the Tribunal in M.V.C.Nos.1007/2013 and 1008/2013, the Tribunal has awarded a global compensation at the rate of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest calculated at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of filing the petition till realization. In the light of the law laid down in KISHAN GOPAL AND ANOTHER VS. LALA AND OTHERS reported in [(2014 1 SCC 244] , the appellant is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.5 lakhs along with interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the award in M.V.C.No.1007/2013 and M.V.C.No.1008/2013 is to be modified by holding that the claimant shall be entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,75,000/in both the cases along with interest calculated at the rate of 6% p.a. The 3^rd respondent is directed to deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from today.

¶114

15 -

¶115

The enhanced sum shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of three years and the deposit shall not be encumbered till the completion of the maturity period. It is made clear that the claimant/appellant No.1 is entitled to withdraw the accrued interest on the said fixed deposit on a monthly basis.

¶116

In so far as it relates to the claim on account of demise of the daughter-in-law (M.V.C.No.1009/2013), the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,36,000/-by taking the notional income of Rs.3,000/- p.m. Though, it is claimed that she was running a business as a tailor and was earning Rs.8,000/- p.m., there is no material placed on record to demonstrate the same. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that taking into consideration the fact that she is a housewife, it would be just and reasonable to enhance the same by a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. The total compensation payable would be Rs.5,36,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.

¶117

16 -

¶118

As regards granting compensation on the head of loss of estate, when the claimants were not dependent on the income of the deceased, the ruling of this Court reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3268, A Manavalagan Vs. A.Krishnamurthy and others can be relied on. In the said judgment, law relating to the grant of compensation on the head of loss of estate where dependency is not there has been very well explained and settled by the said precedent. It is held by the Hon’ble High Court as under:

¶119

“(iii) Where the claim by the legal representatives of the deceased who were not dependants of the deceased, then the basis for award of compensation is the loss to the estate, that is the loss of savings by the deceased.

¶120

A conventional sum for loss of

¶121

expectation of life, is added.

¶122

(iv) The procedure for determination of loss to estate is broadly the same as the procedure for determination of the loss

¶123

17 -

¶124

of dependency. Both involve ascertaining the multiplicand and capitalizing it by multiplying it by an appropriate multiplier. But, the significant difference is in the figure arrived at as multiplicand in cases where the claimants who are dependants claim loss of dependency, and in cases where the claimants who are not dependants claim loss to estate. The annual contribution to the family constitutes the multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency, whereas the annual savings of the deceased becomes the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate. The method of selection of multiplier is however the same in both cases.”

¶125

Therefore, taking into consideration the non-dependency of the wife and children of the deceased having regard to their own income, what the deceased would have saved after deducting his personal expenses would be the loss of estate.

¶126

18 -

¶127

Now, the question would be whether all the claimants are entitled for compensation that is quantified by us as well as by the Tribunal.

¶128

Admittedly, appellant No.1 is the mother of deceased Sangesh. The other three persons who died in the accident are daughter-in-law and two grand children. The remaining appellants 2 to 5 are the married brother and sisters of the deceased. Hence, they are not dependents on the deceased persons. However, it is only the 1^st appellant namely the mother of the deceased Smt.Laxmi Bai alone has pleaded in the claim petition that she was dependant on the income of her son and that she has lost her son’s love and affection and that the deceased was the only bread earner in the family. Therefore, appellants 2 to 5 who have lost love and affection of their brother, have claimed the compensation.

¶129

So far as appellants 2 to 5 are concerned, they are not dependent on the income of the deceased persons.

¶130

19 -

¶131

Therefore, they cannot be granted any compensation. However, under the head “loss of estate”, they would be entitled for some compensation. But in this case, the Class-I heir the mother of the deceased who is very much alive. She is found to be the sole dependant on the income of the deceased son. The other appellants 2 to 5 would not be entitled for compensation under the head “loss of dependency” on account of the death of the three deceased persons.

¶132

As regards the grand children and daughter-in-law is concerned, the 1^st appellant i.e., mother of the deceased was not dependant on their income. Therefore, so far as the quantum of compensation quantified in respect of the deceased daughter-in-law and grandsons is concerned, the 1^st appellant/mother of the deceased would be entitled under the head ‘loss of estate’ i.e., 25% of the compensation determined in respect of daughter-in-law and grandchildren i.e., 25% of Rs.5,36,000/- and 25% of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶133

20 -

¶134

As regards the compensation determined in respect of deceased son is concerned, appellant No.1 as a Class-I heir and dependant on the income of the deceased son would be entitled for full compensation. In the presence of the 1^st appellant, the other appellants are not entitled for compensation. They having lost love and affection of their brother, they could be granted together 10% of the total compensation awarded in respect of the deceased Sangesh.

¶135

Appellants 2 to 5 altogether are entitled for 10% out of the compensation awarded under the head “loss of love and affection” that was determined in respect of the deceased brother. After deducting 10% of Rs.19,65,500/-, the remaining amount would go to 1^st appellant. They are not entitled for any compensation determined in respect of their brother’s wife and his children. The liability of respondents is not in dispute. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. Point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative.

¶136

21 -

¶137

Accordingly,M.F.A.Nos.100234/2018, 100235/ 2018, 100236/2018 and 100237/2018 are allowed in part by modifying the judgment and award dated 03.04.2017 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.Nos.1006 to 1009/2013. The appellant No.1 shall be entitled to an enhanced award of Rs.2 lakhs by way of compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The said sum shall be deposited within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the said sum shall be released in favour of appellant No.1/claimant No.1.

¶138

Sd/JUDGE

¶139

Sd/JUDGE

¶140

jm/-

C. Lakshmi Bai W/O Late Ningappa v. Jaganath S/O Vittal Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Lakshmi Bai W/O Late Ningappa v. Jaganath S/O Vittal Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Raghavi D/O Ganapati Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Anil Shigihalli S/O Basavenneppa Vs Mr.M.R.Munji

Sri. Chandra Gouda S/O. Basana Gouda Patil, Vs the State of Karnataka

Adiveppa Siddappa Sajji, Vs Irrappa Shivappa Gbenkannawar

Smt. Rabiya Begum W/O Hannreshid Pathan Vs Shri. S. Chandrashekhar

Sri.Bugga Reddy S/O Late Saya Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka