{"id":130739,"date":"2009-03-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009"},"modified":"2018-04-24T20:25:00","modified_gmt":"2018-04-24T14:55:00","slug":"kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kunchi vs Ignatius Goldwin on 6 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kunchi vs Ignatius Goldwin on 6 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMACA.No. 2025 of 2007()\n\n\n1. KUNCHI, W\/O. LATE PAZHANI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. IGNATIUS GOLDWIN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :06\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n                      ------------------------------------\n                    M.A.C.A. No.2025 of 2007\n                     -------------------------------------\n               Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
BASANT, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us.<\/p>\n
She claimed an amount of Rs.1,52,500\/- as compensation for<\/p>\n
personal injuries suffered by her in a motor accident which took<\/p>\n
place on 29.02.2000. She was a sweeper in Panchayat service.<\/p>\n
She was earning an income of Rs.3,817\/- per mensem. She was<\/p>\n
aged 53 years at the time of the accident. Fracture of the neck<\/p>\n
of left femur is the injury suffered. She was admitted as an<\/p>\n
inpatient from 29.02.2000 to 06.04.2000 and again from<\/p>\n
25.04.2000 to 13.05.2000 (totally for a period of 53 days in two<\/p>\n
spells). She had allegedly suffered permanent disability and to<\/p>\n
prove this, she produced Ext.A6 disability certificate. Ext.A6<\/p>\n
disability gives the details of the injury and the disability left<\/p>\n
behind.   Doctor had assessed the disability to be 15%.       The<\/p>\n
doctor who issued the certificate was not examined as a witness.<\/p>\n
Before the Tribunal no oral evidence was adduced. Exts.A1 to<\/p>\n
A10 were marked. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. No.2025 of 2007         2<\/span><\/p>\n
all the relevant inputs proceeded to pass the impugned award<\/p>\n
directing payment of an amount of Rs.29,050\/- as per the details<\/p>\n
given below:\n<\/p>\n
     i)    Transport to hospital :   Rs.      800.00\n\n     ii)   Extra nourishment     :   Rs. 1,000.00\n\n     iii)  Damage to clothing :      Rs.     400.00\n\n     iv)   Medical expenses      :   Rs. 2,150.00\n\n     v)    Bystander' expenses :     Rs. 5,700.00\n\n     vi)   Pain and suffering    :   Rs.14,000.00\n\n     vii) Compensation for\n           discomfiture          :   Rs. 5,000.00\n                                     ....................\n                      Total      :   Rs.29,050.00\n                                     ....................\n\n<\/pre>\n
This amount was directed to be paid along with interest @ 6%<\/p>\n
per annum.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned<\/p>\n
award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which<\/p>\n
the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has<\/p>\n
grossly erred in not awarding any amount as compensation for<\/p>\n
loss of earnings\/loss of leave. The appellant has in fact been out<\/p>\n
of employment for a period of about 6 months and during this<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. No.2025 of 2007         3<\/span><\/p>\n
period, she had to forgo her leave\/wages. There is no specific<\/p>\n
evidence made available to find out what the period of leave was<\/p>\n
or what amount has been lost by the appellant, covered by<\/p>\n
eligible leave. But the Tribunal appears to have observed that at<\/p>\n
least 24 weeks of involuntary non employment must have<\/p>\n
resulted. We are satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this<\/p>\n
case that even in the absence of better evidence considering the<\/p>\n
nature of injuries, the period of hospitalisation and the details<\/p>\n
available in the medical records, it is absolutely safe to conclude<\/p>\n
that the appellant would have been compelled to be involuntarily<\/p>\n
unemployed at least for a period of 4 months.     For absence of<\/p>\n
crisp, authentic, cogent and acceptable data, it is only the<\/p>\n
claimant who can be put to suffer.            We are, in these<\/p>\n
circumstances, satisfied that the appellant must certainly have<\/p>\n
been awarded compensation for loss of leave\/earning for the said<\/p>\n
period of 4 months.     The evidence shows that her monthly<\/p>\n
income is Rs.3,817\/- on the date of the accident. We are satisfied<\/p>\n
that a total amount of Rs.16,000\/- can be awarded under this<\/p>\n
head (4 X 4000).\n<\/p>\n
     3.    The counsel contends that the Tribunal erred grossly<\/p>\n
in not accepting that any disability was suffered by the appellant.<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. No.2025 of 2007          4<\/span><\/p>\n
Satisfactory evidence was available about the nature of the<\/p>\n
injury suffered, the treatment undergone and the nature of the<\/p>\n
disability left behind by the injuries suffered. Only an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.5,000\/- has been awarded under the head of discomfiture.<\/p>\n
Counsel contends that appropriate amounts must have been<\/p>\n
awarded for reduction in earning capacity as also loss of<\/p>\n
amenities in life.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    The Doctor who issued Ext.A6 has not been examined.<\/p>\n
But even without examination of the Doctor, the details given –<\/p>\n
judged in the light of the injury and its consequences, we find it<\/p>\n
safe to conclude that the appellant must have suffered physical<\/p>\n
disability.  To prove the precise extent of physical disability,<\/p>\n
better evidence must have been adduced. But at any rate we are<\/p>\n
satisfied that it would be safe considering the nature of<\/p>\n
disability, period of hospitalisation etc. that the appellant must<\/p>\n
have suffered at least 10% disability from the details available in<\/p>\n
Ext.A6 herein.     We are satisfied that physical disability has<\/p>\n
resulted and there must have been consequential reduction in<\/p>\n
earning capacity.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Till such time that the appellant continues in<\/p>\n
employment under the panchayat her physical disability may not<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. No.2025 of 2007        5<\/span><\/p>\n
result in reduction in earnings. But greater strain will have to be<\/p>\n
employed to perform the same amount of work which she was<\/p>\n
able to perform. After suffering the disability, extra efforts may<\/p>\n
be called for and for which she is entitled to be compensated.<\/p>\n
Post superannuation employment prospects will also be effected<\/p>\n
and we are satisfied that she must have retired from service at<\/p>\n
the age of 55 years. For the period thereafter there must have<\/p>\n
been reduction in earnings consequent to the reduction in<\/p>\n
earning capacity.    Appropriate multiplier-multiplicand method<\/p>\n
can be employed and the loss suffered can be ascertained. We<\/p>\n
are satisfied that 10% reduction in earning capacity can be<\/p>\n
ascertained.   The notional income permitted by the second<\/p>\n
schedule to the Workmen’s Compensation Act is Rs.1,250\/-. That<\/p>\n
was the amount fixed in 1994. We are satisfied that Rs.1,500\/-<\/p>\n
can be reckoned as the probable income which the appellant<\/p>\n
would have earned after her retirement.         For the persons<\/p>\n
between the age group 55-60 years, the second schedule permits<\/p>\n
the acceptance of 8 as the multiplier.     The appellant would<\/p>\n
consequently be entitled for an amount of Rs.14,400\/- as<\/p>\n
compensation for reduction in earning capacity [ie. 1,500 X 12 X<\/p>\n
8 x 10\/1000].     The appellant aged 53 years had suffered<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. No.2025 of 2007         6<\/span><\/p>\n
disability. She will have to endure the disability for the rest of<\/p>\n
her life. Only an amount of Rs.5,000\/- has been awarded under<\/p>\n
the head of loss of discomfiture. We are satisfied that an amount<\/p>\n
of Rs.12,500\/- can be awarded as compensation for the loss of<\/p>\n
amenities including impairment in the quality of life and the<\/p>\n
discomfiture suffered.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.37,900\/- in<\/p>\n
addition to amount ordered already by the Tribunal as per the<\/p>\n
details shown below.<\/p>\n
\n\n     Loss of earnings\/leave\n     (No amount awarded)         :   Rs.16,000\/-\n                                     (Rs.4000\/- X 4)\n\n     Compensation\n     for reduction in earning\n     capacity                    :   Rs.14,400\/-\n     (no amount awarded)             (1500 X 12 X 8 X 10\/100)\n\n     Loss of amenities           :   Rs.7,500\/-\n                                     [12,500 minus 5,000]\n                                     .................\n                Total            :   Rs.37,900\/-\n                                     ................\n\n<\/pre>\n
     (Rupees Thirty seven thousand and nine hundred only)<\/p>\n
     7.    Interest has been awarded only @ 6% per annum. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel submits relying on precedents that interest must<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. No.2025 of 2007           7<\/span><\/p>\n
have been awarded at least @ 7.5% per annum. We agree with<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the appellant. We direct that the entire<\/p>\n
amount of compensation shall bear interest @ 7.5% per annum<\/p>\n
from the date of the petition till payment.\n<\/p>\n
     8.   This appeal is allowed in part to the above extent.<\/p>\n
                                       (R.BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                      (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
rtr\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kunchi vs Ignatius Goldwin on 6 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MACA.No. 2025 of 2007() 1. KUNCHI, W\/O. LATE PAZHANI, … Petitioner Vs 1. IGNATIUS GOLDWIN, … Respondent 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130739","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKunchi vs Ignatius Goldwin on 6 March, 2009 - 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\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kunchi vs Ignatius Goldwin on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-24T14:55:00+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kunchi vs Ignatius Goldwin on 6 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-24T14:55:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1109,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Kunchi vs Ignatius Goldwin on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-24T14:55:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kunchi vs Ignatius Goldwin on 6 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Kunchi vs Ignatius Goldwin on 6 March, 2009 - 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\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kunchi vs Ignatius Goldwin on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-24T14:55:00+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kunchi vs Ignatius Goldwin on 6 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-24T14:55:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009"},"wordCount":1109,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009","name":"Kunchi vs Ignatius Goldwin on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-24T14:55:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunchi-vs-ignatius-goldwin-on-6-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kunchi vs Ignatius Goldwin on 6 March, 2009"}]},{"@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\/130739","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=130739"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130739\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130739"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130739"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130739"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}