{"id":106963,"date":"2007-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007"},"modified":"2017-07-03T03:18:09","modified_gmt":"2017-07-02T21:48:09","slug":"tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Tamil Nadu State Transport &#8230; vs Balammal on 23 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tamil Nadu State Transport &#8230; vs Balammal on 23 April, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 23\/04\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR\n\nC.M.A.(MD).No.1046 of 2000\n\n\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,\n(Madurai Division IV) Ltd.,\nrep. By its Managing Director,\nDindigul.\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\nVs.\n\n1.Balammal\n2.Pappathi\n3.Rojammal\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\n\n\tCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act\nagainst the Judgment and Decree dated 16.03.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 1998\non the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Palani.\n\n\n!For Appellant\t    : Mr.D.Sivaraman\n\t\t      For Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil\n\t\t\t\n\t\n^For Respondents     : Mr.S.R.Malaichamy\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated<br \/>\n16.03.2000 passed by the  Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Palani in<br \/>\nM.C.O.P.No.37 of 1998 directing payment of a sum of Rs.90,000\/- together with an<br \/>\ninterest at the rate of 12% from the date of claim till realisation and costs<br \/>\nfor the death of one Aarayee, the mother of the claimants, in an accident<br \/>\nalleged to have taken place on 17.07.1997 at about 05.45 a.m.<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The respondents herein\/claimants preferred a claim on the file of the<br \/>\nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Palani by filing M.C.O.P.No.37 of<br \/>\n1998 praying for an award against the appellant\/respondent for the death of<br \/>\ntheir mother who died in a motor accident that took place on 17.07.1997 at about<br \/>\n05.45 a.m.<\/p>\n<p>\t3. It was contended by the respondents\/claimants in their claim petition<br \/>\nthat the deceased, a pedestrian, was knocked down by the bus bearing<br \/>\nRegistration No.TN-57-N-0636 belonging to the appellant\/respondent, while she<br \/>\nwas proceeding on the edge of the road, after having crossed the road from east<br \/>\nto west; that the driver of the above said bus drove the same in a rash and<br \/>\nnegligent manner dashed against the deceased and knocked her down; that the<br \/>\naccident occurred due to his fault in driving the offending vehicle; that after<br \/>\nthe impact, the deceased was dragged along with the bus to some distance in<br \/>\nwhich her body was smashed and she died instantaneously; that a criminal case<br \/>\nwas registered against the driver of the bus in Crime No.166 of 1997 on the file<br \/>\nof the Aayakkudi Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 304(A)<br \/>\nIPC and that hence the appellant\/respondent, as the owner of the offending<br \/>\nvehicle, should be held liable to pay compensation to the respondents\/claimants,<br \/>\nas they alone were the legal representatives and dependants of the deceased.<br \/>\nWith the further contention that the deceased was a coolie and was having a<br \/>\nmonthly income of Rs.1,500\/-, the respondents\/claimants assessed the damages at<br \/>\nRs.2,82,500\/-, but restricted their claim to Rs.1,75,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. In order to prove their claim, the respondents\/claimants examined two<br \/>\nwitnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and relied on two documents marked as Exs.A-1  and<br \/>\nA-2.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The appellant\/respondent filed a counter statement and  resisted the<br \/>\nclaim, denying the petition averments regarding the manner in which the accident<br \/>\ntook place, the age, occupation and income of the deceased, nature of dependency<br \/>\nand the reasonableness of the amounts claimed as compensation. Incorporating a<br \/>\nfurther contention that the amount claimed by the claimants was highly excessive<br \/>\nand exorbitant, the appellant\/respondent had prayed for the dismissal of<br \/>\nM.C.O.P. with costs.   In support of the defence case of the<br \/>\nappellant\/respondent, only one witness was examined and no document was marked.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. After the conclusion of evidence, the Tribunal heard the arguments<br \/>\nadvanced on either side, framed the necessary questions for determination,<br \/>\nscrutinised the materials on record and on such scrutiny, held that the driver<br \/>\nof the bus belonging  to the appellant\/respondent was at fault and that the<br \/>\naccident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing<br \/>\nRegistration No.TN-57-N-0636 by its driver, mulcted the liability on the<br \/>\nappellant\/respondent as the owner of the offending vehicle, assessed the<br \/>\ncompensation at Rs.90,000\/- and passed an award directing the<br \/>\nappellant\/respondent to pay the above said amount to the respondents\/claimants<br \/>\nas compensation with an interest at the rate of 12% from the date of claim till<br \/>\nrealisation. The Tribunal has also directed the appellant\/respondent to pay<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Aggrieved by and challenging the said award both on the question of<br \/>\nnegligence as well as quantum of compensation, the owner of the offending<br \/>\nvehicle has brought forth this appeal before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel, advancing arguments on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellant, would contend that the Tribunal committed an error in arriving at a<br \/>\nconclusion that the accident was the result of negligence on the part of the<br \/>\ndriver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-57-N-0636 belonging to the<br \/>\nappellant\/respondent; that the Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased in<br \/>\nher attempt to cross the road without noticing the oncoming motor vehicle acted<br \/>\nnegligently and invited the unfortunate accident; that the Tribunal ought to<br \/>\nhave held that the negligence on the part of the deceased alone was the cause of<br \/>\naccident and hence the respondents\/claimants were not entitled to claim<br \/>\ncompensation on the basis of the theory of fault and that the Tribunal ought to<br \/>\nhave rejected the claim of the respondents\/claimants, as they being the married<br \/>\ndaughters of the deceased, were not the dependants of the deceased. The learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant contended further that even assuming that the<br \/>\nrespondents\/claimants were the dependants of the deceased and that the accident<br \/>\noccurred due to the fault of the driver of the appellant\/respondent, the<br \/>\nassessment of compensation by the Tribunal at Rs.90,000\/- was excessive and<br \/>\nhence the same should be reduced in the hands of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. This Court heard the submissions made by Mr.S.R.Malaichamy, learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondents\/claimants in reply to the above said contentions<br \/>\nmade on behalf of the appellant and paid its anxious considerations to the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. It is a fact not in dispute that an accident took place on 17.07.1997<br \/>\nat about 05.45 a.m. near Kanakkanpatti on  Dindigul-Palani Main Road, in which<br \/>\none Aarayee, a pedestrian, was hit by the bus bearing Registration No.TN-57-N-<br \/>\n0636 belonging to the appellant\/respondent and died on the spot. It is also not<br \/>\nin dispute that the respondents\/claimants  are the daughters of the above said<br \/>\nAarayee. The first respondent\/first claimant, who figured as P.W.1, did not<br \/>\nventure to pose herself as an eye witness to the occurrence to speak about the<br \/>\nalleged negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, viz., the<br \/>\nbus belonging to the appellant\/respondent. On the other hand, an independent<br \/>\nwitness, by name, Raja was examined on the side of the claimants as P.W.2. It<br \/>\nwas his clear testimony that while he along with one Singaravelu was walking on<br \/>\nthe Palani-Dindigul Main Road, after answering nature&#8217;s call in the morning<br \/>\nhours, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-57-N-0636 belonging to the<br \/>\nappellant\/respondent came there driven by its driver at a high speed without<br \/>\nsounding the horn and with rashness and negligence, dashed against the deceased<br \/>\nAarayee and ran over her causing instantaneous death on the spot. It is the<br \/>\nfurther evidence of P.W.2 that after hitting the deceased and running over her,<br \/>\nthe said bus proceeded further and capsized in a road side manure pit. P.W.2 has<br \/>\nclearly deposed to the effect that it was the rash and negligent driving of the<br \/>\nbus by its driver which led to the unfortunate accident. Though he was<br \/>\nmeticulously cross-examined, his credibility remained unshaken.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. On the other hand, the evidence of R.W.1, the driver of the offending<br \/>\nvehicle does not inspire the confidence of the Court. Admittedly a case was<br \/>\nregistered on the file of Aayakkudi Police Station against the driver of the bus<br \/>\nin Crime No.166 of 1997 for an offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC.<br \/>\nR.W.1 has also admitted the same. If at all the deceased acted negligently and<br \/>\ngot entangled in the accident in her  attempt to cross the road unmindful of the<br \/>\noncoming vehicle, the driver of the bus would have chosen to lodge a complaint<br \/>\nregarding the accident before ever any other person could lodge a complaint.<br \/>\nThe evidence of P.W.2 that the offending bus after hitting and running over<br \/>\nAarayee, proceeded further and fell into a road side manure pit remains<br \/>\nunchallenged. The same has not been disputed by putting any suggestion to the<br \/>\neffect that the bus did not fall into the manure pit as deposed by P.W.2. Having<br \/>\nfailed to do so, belated attempt was made by making R.W.1 speak to the effect<br \/>\nthat the bus did not fall into the manure pit. When such a clear evidence was<br \/>\nadduced on behalf of the claimants through P.W.2, who happened to be the<br \/>\ninformant to the police for the registration of the criminal case, which<br \/>\nevidence seeks corroboration from the contents of Ex.A.1, the<br \/>\nappellant\/respondent, who wants to challenge the evidence of P.W.2 as well as<br \/>\nthe contents of Ex.A.1, could have obtained certified copies of observation<br \/>\nmahazar and rough sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer and produced the<br \/>\nsame. But the appellant\/respondent has not chosen to do so. The Tribunal, on a<br \/>\nproper scrutiny and  proper appreciation of evidence adduced on both sides, has<br \/>\ncome to a correct conclusion that the bus belonging to the appellant\/respondent<br \/>\nwas driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and that the negligence<br \/>\non the part of the driver of the said vehicle was the cause of the accident. The<br \/>\nfinding of the Tribunal regarding the negligence aspect does not suffer from any<br \/>\nerror or infirmity and the same deserves confirmation in the hands of this<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant<br \/>\nthat the respondents\/claimants being the married daughters of the deceased<br \/>\nAarayee were not her dependants and hence they should be held disentitled to<br \/>\nclaim compensation for the death of Aarayee does not deserve acceptance by this<br \/>\nCourt and the same has got to be rejected as untenable for the following<br \/>\nreasons:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is not in dispute that the respondents\/claimants, three in number, are<br \/>\nthe daughters of the deceased Aarayee and that they had been given in marriage<br \/>\nprior to the death of Aarayee. But simply because a daughter was given in<br \/>\nmarriage to another family, one cannot come to a conclusion that the married<br \/>\ndaughters will not be either dependants or persons deriving benefits from their<br \/>\nparents. In accident cases, damages are awarded not only based on loss of<br \/>\ndependency but also for loss of benefits. Even in the case of absence of<br \/>\ndependency, the excess amount after deducting the personal expenses of the<br \/>\ndeceased, can be taken as either accrual the state of the deceased or the<br \/>\nbenefits received by the legal representatives. In fact, as per Section 166(1)<br \/>\nof the Motor Vehicles Act, in case of death, all or any of the legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives of the deceased can file an application for compensation. But as<br \/>\nper the proviso, where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not<br \/>\njoined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made<br \/>\non behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased<br \/>\nand the legal representatives who have not so joined shall be impleaded as<br \/>\nrespondents to the application. A reading of the entire Section 166 of the Motor<br \/>\nVehicles Act will show that in case of death arising out of a motor vehicle<br \/>\naccident, the legal representatives are entitled to claim compensation. In this<br \/>\ncase, the respondents\/claimants, being the daughters of the deceased, are<br \/>\nadmittedly legal representatives of the deceased Aarayee.  Clear evidence has<br \/>\nalso been adduced to the effect that the husband of Aarayee had pre-deceased<br \/>\nher. It is also the clear testimony of P.W.1 that all the respondents\/claimants<br \/>\nwere receiving support from their mother Aarayee and that they had lost support<br \/>\nafter her death. Under these circumstances, the contention of the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant\/respondent that the respondents\/claimants were neither<br \/>\nlegal representatives nor dependants of the deceased Aarayee and hence should be<br \/>\nnon-suited for making the claim, has got to be rejected as untenable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. The respondents\/claimants have given the age of the deceased as 45<br \/>\nyears. The first claimant is her eldest daughter. According to the petition<br \/>\naverments, the first respondent\/first claimant Balammal was aged about 32 years<br \/>\non the date of filing of the claim petition. If it is so, accepting the petition<br \/>\naverment that the deceased was aged about 45 years would amount to accepting<br \/>\nthat she gave birth to the first child at the age of 13. This Court is not<br \/>\ninclined to accept the same in the absence of any concrete material. Therefore<br \/>\nthe reliance made by the Tribunal on the post mortem certificate Ex.A.2 to fix<br \/>\nthe age of the deceased is not proper. Assuming that the deceased might have got<br \/>\nmarried earliest at the age of 17 and given birth to the first child at the age<br \/>\nof 18, we can safely arrive at the conclusion that the deceased had completed<br \/>\nthe age of 50 years as on the date of her death. In the absence of any concrete<br \/>\nevidence regarding the income, we can adopt the notional income, namely,<br \/>\nRs.15,000\/- per annum. If Rs.5,000\/- representing 1\/3 of the said amount is<br \/>\ndeducted towards personal expenses, the balance amount of Rs.10,000\/- shall be<br \/>\nthe annual loss of benefit and dependency occasioned to the<br \/>\nrespondents\/claimants.  Considering the fact that the deceased had crossed the<br \/>\nage of 50 and the claimants are her married daughters, adopting multiplier 8 in<br \/>\nthis case shall be reasonable. Multiplying the multiplicand Rs.10,000\/- by the<br \/>\nselected multiplier 8, we can get a sum of (Rs.10,000 x 8) = Rs.80,000\/-<br \/>\nrepresenting the compensation for loss of benefit and dependency occasioned to<br \/>\nthe respondents\/claimants. Without following any such procedure, the Tribunal<br \/>\nseems to have arbitrarily awarded a sum of Rs.50,000\/- alone for the death of<br \/>\nAarayee. Perhaps the Tribunal keeping in mind the loss of dependency might have<br \/>\nawarded the said amount. As indicated above, the same is highly inappropriate<br \/>\nand inadequate. Hence the same should be enhanced to Rs.80,000\/-. The Tribunal<br \/>\nseems to have awarded a sum of Rs.5,000\/- towards funeral expenses; which is not<br \/>\nunreasonably low or excessive. Hence the same has got to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. On the other hand, for the loss of love and affection alone, the<br \/>\nTribunal seems to have awarded a sum of Rs.35,000\/- which is definitely<br \/>\nexcessive and hence liable to be reduced. Taking into account the age of the<br \/>\ndeceased and the fact that all the claimants are her married daughters, this<br \/>\nCourt is of the view that it shall be suffice to award a sum of Rs.5,000\/- alone<br \/>\nfor loss of love and affection. In addition to that at least a sum of Rs.5,000\/-<br \/>\ncould be awarded for loss of expectation of life. If all these amounts are put<br \/>\ntogether, the total amount of compensation that can be reasonably awarded comes<br \/>\nto Rs.95,000\/-. The above said amount is, in fact, slightly more than the amount<br \/>\nawarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the total<br \/>\namount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation can be termed either excessive or<br \/>\nexorbitant.  Hence the challenge made to the award by the appellant\/respondent<br \/>\ncannot be sustained and the interest of justice requires confirmation of the<br \/>\naward and dismissal of the appeal with costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. In the result, the award of the Tribunal stands confirmed and<br \/>\naccordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>SML<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal<br \/>\n(Sub Court),<br \/>\nPalani.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Tamil Nadu State Transport &#8230; vs Balammal on 23 April, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23\/04\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A.(MD).No.1046 of 2000 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Madurai Division IV) Ltd., rep. By its Managing Director, Dindigul. .. Appellant Vs. 1.Balammal 2.Pappathi 3.Rojammal .. [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-106963","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Balammal on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Balammal on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-02T21:48:09+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tamil Nadu State Transport &#8230; vs Balammal on 23 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-02T21:48:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2552,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Balammal on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-02T21:48:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu State Transport &#8230; vs Balammal on 23 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Balammal on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Balammal on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-02T21:48:09+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tamil Nadu State Transport &#8230; vs Balammal on 23 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-02T21:48:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007"},"wordCount":2552,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007","name":"Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Balammal on 23 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-02T21:48:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-balammal-on-23-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tamil Nadu State Transport &#8230; vs Balammal on 23 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/106963","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=106963"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106963\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106963"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106963"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106963"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}