{"id":114932,"date":"2008-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008"},"modified":"2016-12-29T03:20:34","modified_gmt":"2016-12-28T21:50:34","slug":"maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Maria Kanagappan vs Sivakumar on 8 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Maria Kanagappan vs Sivakumar on 8 July, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 08\/07\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL\n\nC.M.A.No.75 of 2004\nand\nC.M.A.No.76 of 2004\n\nC.M.A.No.75 of 2004\n\n1.Maria Kanagappan\n2.Lathis Mary Yesuthangam\t\t.. Appellants\/Claimants\n\nVs\n\n1.Sivakumar\t\t\t\n\n2.The Tamil Nadu State Transport\n  Corporation Limited, Division - III,\n  Madurai, represented by its\n  Managing Director, Ranithottam,\n  Nagercoil.\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\/Respondents<\/pre>\n
Prayer<\/p>\n
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the
\naward dated 01.12.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2002, by the Motor Accident
\nClaims Tribunal – Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellant\t… Mr.M.Suri
\n^For Respondents… No representation for R.1
\n\t\t    Mr.D.Sivaraman for
\n\t            M\/s.Rajinish Pathiyil
\n\t\t    for R.2<\/p>\n
C.M.A.No.76 of 2004<\/p>\n
#1.Thomas\n<\/p>\n
2.Mary Alphonsal\t\t\t.. Appellants\/Claimants<\/p>\n
Vs<\/p>\n
$1.Sivakumar\t\t\t<\/p>\n
2.The Tamil Nadu State Transport
\n  Corporation Limited, Division – III,
\n  Madurai, represented by its
\n  Managing Director, Ranithottam,
\n  Nagercoil.\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\/Respondents<\/p>\n
Prayer<\/p>\n
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the
\naward dated 01.12.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2002, by the Motor Accident
\nClaims Tribunal – Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellant\t… Mr.M.Suri<\/p>\n
^For Respondents… No representation for R.1
\n\t\t    Mr.D.Sivaraman for
\n\t\t    M\/s.Rajinish Pathiyil
\n\t\t    for R.2
\n:COMMON JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
\tThese Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the appellants\/claimants as
\nagainst the award dated 01.12.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.169 of 2002 170 of
\n2002, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Judge,
\nKanyakumari District at Nagercoil, granting a compensation of Rs.1,70,000\/-
\n(Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Thousand only) to the appellants\/claimants (in both
\nthe claims) together with interest at 9% p.a from the date of filing of the
\npetition till date of payment.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The Tribunal has directed the second respondent\/State Transport
\nCorporation to deposit the award amount within two months from the date of
\npassing of the award.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The appellants\/claimants being the parents of the deceased son Jenil
\nShylock, have filed the claim petition M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2002, claiming a total
\ncompensation of Rs.25,02,500\/- and has restricted the same to a sum of
\nRs.10,00,000\/- only.  The appellants\/claimants being the parents of the deceased
\nson Jotrin Carton have filed the claim petition M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2002 before
\nthe Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.25,02,300\/- and has restricted
\nthe same to a sum of Rs.10,00,000\/- only.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The short facts of the claim in both M.C.O.P.Nos.169 and 170 of 2002,
\nare as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 22.02.2002, at 01.50 p.m, the deceased Jenil Shylock was riding the
\nmotorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-74-B-3440 with Jotrin Carton as a pillion
\nrider on the motorcycle and were proceeding from Nullivilai to Monday Market on
\nthe main road and when they came near Rajan Jewellery shop, the bus bearing
\nRegistration No.TN-74-N-0555 which came in the opposite direction, was driven by
\nthe first respondent\/driver Sivakumar, with abnormal speed in a rash and
\nnegligent manner and knocked down the deceased and the pillion rider as a result
\nof which, the deceased Jenil Shylock sustained injuries all over the body.  The
\naccident was witnesses by Joseph Antony Raj, Thanaka Sornam, Vijin Ramesh and
\nothers.  Immediately, Jenil Shylock and Jotrin Carton were rushed to the
\nGovernment Head Quarters Hospital, Nagercoil, where they were declared dead.
\nThe accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the first
\nrespondent.  The deceased Jenil Shylock was aged 21 years and he had completed
\nI.T.I course with fitter subject as specialisation.  He was bright in his
\nstudies and also evinced interest in sports and service activities.  He
\nparticipated in games like Ball-badminton, Kabadi, High Jump, Long Jump and
\nPole-vault and obtained meritorious certificates.  He was also a member of Kho-
\nkho and received the appreciation awards for the year 1993-94 and 1994-95.  He
\nwas brilliant and intelligent.  The close relatives of the appellants\/claimants
\nrequested them to send the deceased son Jenil Shylock abroad and the
\nappellants\/claimants had made necessary arrangements for obtaining the passport
\nand the deceased had a valid passport.  The deceased was planning to go to
\nMumbai and then to Gulf countries, where he would have earned positively a sum
\nof Rs.10,000\/- p.m.  The Eraniel Police had registered the case in Cr.No.216 of
\n2002 under Section 304(A) I.P.C.  The first respondent\/driver  of the Tamil Nadu
\nState Transport Corporation Limited, was responsible for causing the accident.
\nHence, the appellants\/claimants prayed for a restricted compensation of
\nRs.10,00,000\/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition
\ntill date of realisation with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The death of the deceased Jotrin Carton was due to the rash and
\nnegligent driving of the first respondent\/driver and if the deceased Jotrin
\nCarton had not met with the accident, he would have lived upto more than 70
\nyears with a matrimonial life and also would have become an Executive Engineer
\nin Government Department and reputed Private concerns which was the expectation
\nof the appellants\/claimants (in M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2002) and they had lost their
\nonly loving son and that they suffered a great shock.  Hence, the
\nappellants\/claimants prayed for a restricted compensation of Rs.10,00,000\/- with
\ninterest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition till date of realisation with
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The second respondent\/State Transport Corporation took a stand (which
\nwas adopted by the first respondent\/driver Sivakumar), before the Tribunal that
\nthe width of the tar road at the accident spot was 26 feet and the tar portion
\nwas 15 feet width and the first respondent\/driver was driving the bus very
\ncarefully on the extreme left side of the road, at a slow speed and the person
\nwho was driving the motorcycle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and
\nthat the motorcycle was driving along the wrong side of the road namely on the
\nright side of the road.  Actually, the motorcycle was attempted to overtake a
\nlorry and therefore, the accident happened and not due to any rashness or
\nnegligence of the first respondent\/driver and that the deceased contributed the
\naccident and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claims.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Before the Tribunal, in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2002, witnesses P.W.1 to
\nP.W.3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked on the side of the
\nappellants\/claimants.  On the side of the second respondent, R.W.1 was examined
\nand no documents were marked.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The learned Counsel for the appellants\/claimants contends that the
\ncompensation of Rs.1,70,000\/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Thousand only)
\nawarded by the Tribunal to the claimants in both the claim petitions was a
\nmeagre amount and that the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was 25%
\nresponsible for causing the accident, was without any evidence and that the
\nTribunal should have seen that the income of the deceased would be at least
\nRs.3,000\/- p.m, and that the deduction of 1\/4th of the award amount on
\nRs.57,000\/- was illegal and that the deduction of 1\/3rd of the award amount was
\nalso illegal and therefore, prays for allowing the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Finding on negligence:-\n<\/p>\n
\tTo prove the issue of negligence, the appellants\/claimants have examined
\nthe eyewitness Joseph Antony Raj as P.W.3 and he has deposed that on 22.02.2002
\nat about 01.50 p.m, in the afternoon, he along with Thanga Sornam and Vigin
\nRamesh were standing and talking near Rajan Jewellery Shop at Mottaivilai in
\nThottiyodu road and at that time, the deceased Jenil Shylock and deceased Jotrin
\nCarton were coming from Thottiyodu to Monday Market in the motorcycle and at
\nthat time, in the opposite direction, the passenger bus bearing Registration
\nNo.TN-74-N-0555 belonging to the Government came in a high speed and dashed
\nagainst the motorcycle unexpectedly while turning on sideways and as a result of
\nwhich, one boy died on the spot and another boy died on the way to Hospital and
\nthe bus after dashing against the motorcycle stopped at a distance of 20 feet
\nfrom the place of accident and that the accident occurred due to the negligence
\nof the bus driver.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. P.W.3, Joseph Antony Raj, in his cross-examination has clearly stated
\nthat at the place of occurrence, the width of the road was 23 or 24 feet and the
\ntar portion was 20 feet width, where two vehicles can pass and the right side of
\nthe bus dashed against the motorcycle.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. R.W.1, Sivakumar, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-
\nN-0555 at the time of the accident, in his evidence has stated that he was the
\ndriver of the said bus on 22.02.2002 and he took the bus at 12.45 p.m at Pidalam
\nand at 01.30 p.m, when the bus came to Mottaivilai, at that time, in the
\nopposite direction of the bus, two persons came in a two wheeler and that the
\nmotorcyclist dashed against the right side of the bus and that he applied his
\nbrakes immediately and stopped his vehicle and there was a gap of six feet on
\nthe left side of the motorcycle and that the Yamaha motorcyclist drove the
\nmotorcycle in a high speed and when he got down from his bus, he saw two persons
\nwho came in the bike lying outside.  R.W.1, in his cross-examination has
\ncategorically stated that his bus stopped at a distance of 10 feet from the
\naccident spot.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. P.W.3, Joseph Antony Raj, is the complainant in Ex.P.1 F.I.R, and the
\nname of the accused is mentioned as Sivakumar, the driver of the Government  bus
\nbearing Registration No.TN-74-N-0555.  In Ex.P.1, F.I.R, the complainant Joseph
\nAntony Raj (examined as P.W.3) has clearly inter alia stated that ‘in the
\naforesaid road, in the direction of east to west, Jenil Shylock, S\/o.Maria
\nKanagappan and Jotrin Carton, S\/o.Thomas, were travelling in the motorcycle
\nbearing Registration No.TN-74-B-3440 and the motorcycle was driven by Jenil
\nShylock and at that time, in their opposite side, in the direction of west to
\neast, the Government Passenger bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-N-0555, was
\ndriven by its driver Sivakumar, S\/o.Muthiah, in a high speed, negligently and
\nwithout sounding horn and dashed against the motorcycle’s front side and that
\nJenil Shylock and Jotrin Carton along with motorcycle were dragged to an extent
\nof 20 feet towards east and thereafter, the bus stopped etc’.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. On a perusal of Ex.P.1, F.I.R, it is clear that the Eraniel Police had
\nregistered a case in Cr.No.216 of 2002 under Section 304(A) I.P.C. In Ex.P.3,
\nthe Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, in respect of the Motor vehicles involved
\nin the accident, the Motor Vehicle Inspector inter alia opined that the accident
\nwas not due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. At this stage, this Court points out that it is the duty of the driver
\nof the bus bearing Registration No.TN-74-N-0555, to slow down his vehicle while
\nproceeding and turning sidewise and to enter it, only on being aware that he can
\ndo so without endangering the safety of other persons and further it is the
\ndriver of such vehicle who must give way to the traffic on the road.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. It is to be borne in mind that negligence is sound principle which has
\nto be applied to different conditions and problems of human life.  As a matter
\nof fact, it is not sufficient for the driver to try to be careful in driving,
\nbut he should further anticipate the common folly of others which he knows by
\nexperience would generally agree.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. In fact, the principle ‘res ipsa loquitur’ depends upon the nature of
\nthe accident and the attendant circumstances.  The principle ‘res ipsa loquitur’
\nis only a rule of evidence to determine the burden of proof in actions
\npertaining to negligence.  The said principle has application only when the
\nnature of the accident and the attendant circumstances would reasonably lead to
\nthe belief that in the absence of negligence, the accident would have occurred
\nand that the thing which is caused injury is established to have been under the
\nmanagement and control of the wrong doer.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. It is relevant to mention that it is for the driver of the offending
\nvehicle, not merely to say that he had acted carefully, but to rebut that
\npresumption by proving that there was no negligence on his part even though he
\ncould not prove as to how the accident took place.  Moreover, if the driver had
\na last opportunity to avoid the accident, the principle ‘res ipso loquitor’ is
\napplicable and the driver is guilty of rash and negligent driving.  Where the
\nprinciple of ‘res ipso loquitor’ is attracted, the burden then shifts to the
\nrespondent and the initial onus has to be on the driver to prove  that he was
\nnot negligent.  However, when the situation speaks of itself, it means
\nnegligence openly and the maxim ‘res ipso loquitor’ would be applicable to it,
\nin the considered opinion of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. As far as the present case is concerned, the complainant, Joseph
\nAntony Raj (P.W.3), in his evidence has specifically stated that the bus after
\nhitting the deceased persons, who came in the motorcycle, dragged the motorcycle
\nto a distance of 20 feet and stopped facing east direction and that since the
\nbus dragged the motorcycle, the deceased Jenil Shylock has sustained grievous
\ninjuries on his left side head, left knee, right eyebrow, right leg joint and in
\nother places and that the right side face of Jotrin Carton along with eye, left
\nleg below joint and his knee portion in entirety and in other places sustained
\ninjuries.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. Though R.W.1, the driver of the bus, in his evidence has stated that
\nthe person who came in the two wheeler has dashed against his bus on the right
\nportion, the same is only a self-serving and interested one in view of the
\nspecific evidence of the complainant\/P.W.3, who has clearly stated that the bus
\nbearing Registration No.TN-74-N-0555 was driven by its driver in a high speed,
\nnegligently and without sounding horn, it came and dashed against the front
\nright side of the motorcycle etc., and therefore, this Court rejects the
\nevidence of R.W.1 in this regard and comes to the inevitable conclusion that the
\naccident has taken place due to the high speed and negligent driving of the bus
\nbearing Registration No.TN-74-N-0555 by its driver, R.W.1, Sivakumar and that
\nthe driver of the said bus is cent per cent, squarely responsible for causing
\nthe accident and therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal that the deceased has
\ncontributed the accident to an extent of 25% is not correct and the point is
\nanswered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. Finding on quantum of compensation in C.M.A.No.75 of 2004 (in
\nM.C.O.P.No.169 of 2002):-\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is to be pointed out that P.W.1\/first claimant, Maria Kanagappan, (in
\nM.C.O.P.No.169 of 2002), in his evidence has deposed that his son Jenil Shylock
\ndied in the accident and at the time of his death, he was aged about 22 years
\nand that he studied ITI Course and that his son, apart from studies, also
\nevinced interest in sports.  It is the further evidence of P.W.1, that he was
\nworking in abroad and he decided to send his son abroad after his son finishing
\nhis studies and that he had taken passport and that his son registered his name
\nat the Employment Exchange.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. In Ex.P.2, the certified copy of post-mortem certificate, in respect
\nof the deceased Jenil Shylock, it is mentioned that the deceased ‘appear to have
\ndied of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to liver 16 – 20 hours prior to
\npost-mortem.’.  In Ex.P.2, post-mortem certificate, the age of the deceased
\nJenil Shylock is mentioned as 20 years.  However, in the petition, the age of
\nthe deceased Jenil Shylock has given as 22 years.  In Ex.P.4, the driving
\nlicence, in respect of the deceased Jenil Shylock, his date of birth is
\nmentioned as ‘05.07.1980’.  The date of accident is on 22.02.2002.  Therefore,
\nthe age of the deceased Jenil Shylock at the time of his death is 21 years 7
\nmonths and 17 days and hence, this Court determines the age of the deceased
\nJenil Shylock at the time of his death as 22 years.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. It is pertinent to point out that the Tribunal has determined the
\nmonthly contribution of the deceased Jenil Shylock at Rs.1,500\/- p.m, and
\ntherefore, for an year, it has worked out to Rs.18,000\/- (Rupees Eighteen
\nThousand only).  The Tribunal has further arrived at a figure of Rs.3,42,000\/-
\n(Rupees Three Lakhs and Forty Two Thousand only) in regard to the death of Jenil
\nShylock towards compensation as per Section 163(A) Second Schedule of Motor
\nVehicles Act and after deducting 1\/3rd amount towards his personal expenses, it
\nhas fixed the compensation at Rs.2,28,000\/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Twenty Eight
\nThousand only) and it has also deducted a sum of Rs.57,000\/- (Rupees Fifty Seven
\nThousand only) namely, 1\/4th of Rs.2,28,000\/- towards 25% contributory
\nnegligence of the deceased Jenil Shylock and has awarded a rounded of sum of
\nRs.1,70,000\/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Thousand only) {for the figure of
\nRs.1,71,000\/-}, payable to the appellants\/claimants in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2002
\n(C.M.A.No.75 of 2004).\n<\/p>\n
\t23. It is to be borne in mind that when the Tribunal has arrived at a
\nfigure of Rs.3,42,000\/- as total compensation as mentioned in paragraph No.15 of
\nits award, then, obviously it has adopted a multiplier of 19, to arrive at a
\ncompensation of Rs.3,42,000\/- (Rs.1,500\/- X 12 X 19 = Rs.3,42,000\/-)in the
\nconsidered opinion of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. Ex.P.6, (series), refers to the certificates obtained by the deceased
\nJenil Shylock in respect of games in Pole-vault, Kabadi, Ball-Badminton, Kho-
\nkho,  Provisional National Trade Certificate and the certificate of appreciation
\nfor donating voluntarily one Unit of Blood.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. Bearing in mind of the fact that the deceased Jenil Shylock with his
\nqualification in ITI Course, etc., and other proficiency in games as evidenced
\nby his certificates Ex.P.6 series, produced in this case, this Court also,
\ntaking note of the fact that he has taken passport in his name with a view to go
\nabroad, fixes his average monthly income of the deceased Jenil Shylock (had he
\nbeen alive), at Rs.3,000\/- p.m and after deducting 1\/3rd amount towards his
\npersonal expenses, determines at Rs.2,000\/- as monthly dependency. Then, for an
\nyear, it works out to Rs.24,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. As a matter of fact, the Second Schedule to Section 163(A) of the
\nMotor Vehicles Act, refers to the adoption of multiplier of 16 for a person aged
\n15 years and not exceeding 20 years who died in an accident and likewise,
\nadoption of multiplier of 17 is mentioned in respect of an individual above 20
\nyears but not exceeding 25 years who died in an accident.  Similarly, the said
\nSchedule speaks of adoption of multiplier of 18, in respect of a person about 25
\nyears but not exceeding 30 years who died in an accident.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. Therefore, this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the
\ncase, is of the view that the proper multiplier of 16 can be adopted which will
\nserve the ends of justice.  Accordingly,  adopting a fair and reasonable
\nmultiplier of 16, the compensation amount comes to Rs.3,84,000\/- (Rs.2,000\/- X
\n12 X 16 = Rs.3,84,000\/-) {Rupees Three Lakhs and Eighty Four Thousand only}, to
\nwhich amount the appellants\/claimants in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 2002 are entitled to
\nreceive from the second respondent\/State Transport Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. Towards pain and sufferings, this Court grants a sum of Rs.5,000\/-.
\nThis Court grants a sum of Rs.2,000\/- towards funeral expenses.  Further, this
\nCourt grants a sum of Rs.2,500\/- for loss of estate.  Thus, in all, this Court
\nawards a sum of Rs.3,93,500\/- [Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand and Five
\nHundred only] {Rs.3,84,000\/- + Rs.5,000\/- + Rs.2,000\/- + Rs.2,500\/- =
\nRs.3,93,500\/-} as total compensation together with interest at 9% p.a. from the
\ndate of petition till date of payment payable by the second respondent\/State
\nTransport Corporation.  Consequently, this Court is of the  considered view that
\nthe Tribunal has not looked into the overall assessment of the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case in a proper perspective and therefore, a sum of
\nRs.1,70,000\/- as compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and on the
\nlower side.\n<\/p>\n
\t29. Already the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,70,000\/- along with
\ninterest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment.  If the said
\naward amount along with interest at 9% p.a, has already been deposited by the
\nState Transport Corporation, then, the different sum of Rs.2,23,500\/- (Rupees
\nTwo Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand and Five Hundred only) along with interest at 9%
\np.a. as enhanced compensation, is directed to be paid by the second
\nrespondent\/State Transport Corporation within a period of two months from the
\ndate of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
\t30. The lawyer’s fee is fixed at Rs.10,870\/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Eight
\nHundred and Seventy only) by this Court.  In regard to the lawyer’s fee, the
\ndifferent sum of Rs.4,470\/- (Rupees Four Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy only)
\n{Rs.10,870\/- – Rs.6,400\/- = Rs.4,470\/-}, is also directed to be deposited by the
\nsecond respondent\/State Transport Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. Finding on quantum of compensation in C.M.A.No.76 of 2004 (in
\nM.C.O.P.No.170 of 2002):-\n<\/p>\n
\tP.W.2\/first claimant (in M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2002), Thomas, in his evidence
\nhas stated that his son Jotrin Catron died in an accident and was aged about 21
\nyears at the time of accident and that he was awarded with Diploma in Civil
\nEngineering and that he completed Auto Cad 2000 course and that he completed the
\ncourse in Land Survey.\n<\/p>\n
\t32. P.W.2, in his further evidence has deposed that his relatives were in
\nforeign country and therefore he intended to send his son abroad for job and
\nafter his son’s demise, his son received appointment order from Public Works
\nDepartment and that his wife had undergone a family planning operation.\n<\/p>\n
\t33. In Ex.P.7, the certified copy of the post-mortem certificate,
\npertaining to Jotrin Catron, his age is mentioned as 20 years.  In the claim
\npetition in M.C.O.P.No.170 of 2002, the age of the deceased Jotrin Catron is
\nmentioned as 21 years.  In Ex.P.8, passport of the deceased Jotrin Catron, the
\ndate of birth is mentioned as ‘25.07.1981’.  Admittedly, the date of accident is
\non 22.02.2002.  Therefore, this Court determines the age of the deceased Jotrin
\nCatron at the time of accident as 21 years, relying upon his date of birth as
\n25.07.1981 as mentioned in Ex.P.8, passport.\n<\/p>\n
\t34. In Ex.P.9, the proceedings of the Superintending Engineer dated
\n19.12.2002, the name of the deceased Jotrin Catron is mentioned in Sl.No.8 as
\nDCE Civil and he has been given the reposting orders at the place ‘Sea Erosion
\nPrevention Division, Nagercoil’.\n<\/p>\n
\t35. Ex.P.10, series, refers to Jotrin Catron’s Diploma qualification in
\n‘Civil Engineering’, his certificate of achievement in Auto Cad 2000,
\nCertificate in ‘Land and Astronomy Surveying’ Course, and the certificate of
\nappreciation awarded to him for having donated one Unit of blood on 31.01.2002.\n<\/p>\n
\t36. It is necessary to point out that the Tribunal has determined the
\nmonthly contribution of the deceased Jotrin Catron at Rs.1,500\/- p.m, and
\ntherefore, for an year, it has worked out to Rs.18,000\/- (Rupees Eighteen
\nThousand only).  The Tribunal has further arrived at a figure of Rs.3,42,000\/-
\n(Rupees Three Lakhs and Forty Two Thousand only) in regard to the death of
\nJotrin Catron towards compensation as per Section 163(A) Second Schedule of
\nMotor Vehicles Act and after deducting 1\/3rd amount towards his personal
\nexpenses, it has fixed the compensation at Rs.2,28,000\/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and
\nTwenty Eight Thousand only) and it has also deducted a sum of Rs.57,000\/-
\n(Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand only) namely, 1\/4th of Rs.2,28,000\/- towards 25%
\ncontributory negligence of the deceased Jotrin Catron and has awarded a rounded
\nof sum of Rs.1,70,000\/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Thousand only) {for the
\nfigure of Rs.1,71,000\/-}, payable to the appellants\/claimants in M.C.O.P.No.170
\nof 2002 (C.M.A.No.76 of 2004).\n<\/p>\n
\t37. It is to be pointed out that when the Tribunal has arrived at a figure
\nof Rs.3,42,000\/- as total compensation as mentioned in paragraph No.18 of its
\naward, then, obviously it has adopted a multiplier of 19, to fix the total
\ncompensation of Rs.3,42,000\/- (Rs.1,500\/- X 12 X 19 = Rs.3,42,000\/-)in the
\nconsidered opinion of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t38. Considering the educational qualifications of the deceased Jotrin
\nCatron namely, Diploma in Civil Engineering, etc, and taking note of the fact
\nthat he has taken passport in order to go abroad for seeking employment, this
\nCourt fixes his average monthly income (had he been alive) at the rate of
\nRs.3,000\/- p.m and after deducting 1\/3rd amount towards personal expenses, the
\nsame is determined at Rs.2,000\/- p.m towards loss of monthly dependency. Then,
\nfor an year, it works out to Rs.24,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t39. In fact, the Second Schedule to Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles
\nAct, refers to the adoption of multiplier of 16 for a person aged 15 years and
\nnot exceeding 20 years who died in an accident and likewise, adoption of
\nmultiplier of 17 is mentioned in respect of an individual above 20 years but not
\nexceeding 25 years who died in an accident.  Similarly, the said Schedule speaks
\nof adoption of multiplier of 18, in respect of a person about 25 years but not
\nexceeding 30 years who died in an accident.\n<\/p>\n
\t40. Hence, this Court, taking note of the facts and circumstances of the
\ncase, is of the considered opinion that the proper multiplier of 16 can be
\nsafely adopted which will meet the ends of justice.  Resultantly, adopting a
\njust and  reasonable multiplier of 16, the compensation amount comes to
\nRs.3,84,000\/- (Rs.2,000\/- X 12 X 16 = Rs.3,84,000\/-) {Rupees Three Lakhs and
\nEighty Four Thousand only}, to which amount the appellants\/claimants in
\nM.C.O.P.No.170 of 2002 are entitled to receive from the second respondent\/State
\nTransport Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
\t41. Towards pain and sufferings, this Court awards a sum of Rs.5,000\/-.
\nThis Court fixes a sum of Rs.2,000\/- towards funeral expenses.  Further, this
\nCourt grants a sum of Rs.2,500\/- for loss of estate.  Thus, in all, this Court
\ndetermines a sum of Rs.3,93,500\/- [Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand and
\nFive Hundred only] {Rs.3,84,000\/- + Rs.5,000\/- + Rs.2,000\/- + Rs.2,500\/- =
\nRs.3,93,500\/-} as total compensation together with interest at 9% p.a. from the
\ndate of petition till date of payment payable by the second respondent\/State
\nTransport Corporation.  Consequently, this Court is of the  considered view that
\nthe Tribunal has not looked into the overall assessment of the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case in a proper perspective and therefore, a sum of
\nRs.1,70,000\/- as compensation awarded by the Tribunal is insufficient and on the
\nlower side.\n<\/p>\n
\t42. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.1,70,000\/- along with
\ninterest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment.  If the said
\naward amount along with interest at 9% p.a, has already been deposited by the
\nState Transport Corporation, then, the different sum of Rs.2,23,500\/- (Rupees
\nTwo Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand and Five Hundred only) along with interest at 9%
\np.a. as enhanced compensation, is directed to be paid by the second
\nrespondent\/State Transport Corporation within a period of two months from the
\ndate of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
\t43. The lawyer’s fee is fixed at Rs.10,870\/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Eight
\nHundred and Seventy only) by this Court.  In regard to the lawyer’s fee, the
\ndifferent sum of Rs.4,470\/- (Rupees Four Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy only)
\n{Rs.10,870\/- – Rs.6,400\/- = Rs.4,470\/-}, is also directed to be deposited by the
\nsecond respondent\/State Transport Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
Conclusion:\n<\/p>\n
\t44. In fine, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed in above
\nterms.  Consequently, the award dated 01.12.2003 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.169 and
\n170 of 2002, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Judge,
\nKanyakumari District at Nagercoil, stands modified.  There shall be no order as
\nto costs bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
rsb<\/p>\n
To
\nThe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal –\n<\/p>\n
Principal District Judge,
\nKanyakumari District at
\nNagercoil.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Maria Kanagappan vs Sivakumar on 8 July, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08\/07\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.M.A.No.75 of 2004 and C.M.A.No.76 of 2004 C.M.A.No.75 of 2004 1.Maria Kanagappan 2.Lathis Mary Yesuthangam .. Appellants\/Claimants Vs 1.Sivakumar 2.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Division – III, […]<\/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-114932","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMaria Kanagappan vs Sivakumar on 8 July, 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\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maria Kanagappan vs Sivakumar on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-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=\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-28T21:50:34+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maria Kanagappan vs Sivakumar on 8 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-28T21:50:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4713,\"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\\\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Maria Kanagappan vs Sivakumar on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-28T21:50:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maria Kanagappan vs Sivakumar on 8 July, 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":"Maria Kanagappan vs Sivakumar on 8 July, 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\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maria Kanagappan vs Sivakumar on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-28T21:50:34+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maria Kanagappan vs Sivakumar on 8 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-28T21:50:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008"},"wordCount":4713,"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\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008","name":"Maria Kanagappan vs Sivakumar on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-28T21:50:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maria-kanagappan-vs-sivakumar-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maria Kanagappan vs Sivakumar on 8 July, 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\/114932","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=114932"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114932\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114932"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114932"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114932"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}