{"id":137484,"date":"2010-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2"},"modified":"2018-06-16T02:57:38","modified_gmt":"2018-06-15T21:27:38","slug":"vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Vilasini.R.Nair vs Sunil Antony on 19 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Vilasini.R.Nair vs Sunil Antony on 19 January, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMACA.No. 2392 of 2008()\n\n\n1. VILASINI.R.NAIR, W\/O.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SUNIL ANTONY, KOCHAPPILLY HOUSE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. JOSEPH, S\/O.KUNJU,\n\n3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JANARDHANAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI\n\n Dated :19\/01\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n               R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ\n\n        ==============================\n\n                M.A.C.A. NO. 2392 OF 2008-F\n\n          ============================\n\n      DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2010\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Basant,J.\n<\/p>\n
     Claimant is the appellant. She suffered injuries in a motor<\/p>\n
accident which took place on 03\/03\/2001. She was a Mahila<\/p>\n
Pradhan Agent. She claimed that she was earning a monthly<\/p>\n
income of Rs.3,500\/-. She had suffered serious injuries. She was<\/p>\n
an in-patient for a period of 51 days. Her permanent disability<\/p>\n
was got assessed by the tribunal by referring her to a medical<\/p>\n
board.    The medical board reported the extent of physical<\/p>\n
disability to be 75% as per Ext.A9. A total amount of Rs.9.14<\/p>\n
lakhs was claimed as compensation.        The tribunal, on an<\/p>\n
evaluation of the materials available before it, came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the claimant is entitled for an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,88,000\/- as compensation as per the details shown below:<\/p>\n
                                                     Rs.<\/p>\n
\n\nM.A.C.A. No.2392\/2008             2<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n     1.     Transportation, hospitalisation\n            extra nourishment & damage               6,000\/-\n            to clothings\n\n     2.     Attendant expenses                        8,500\/-\n\n     3.     Medical expenses                        50,000\/-\n\n     4.     Loss of earnings (Rs.2,500\/- x 13)     32,500\/-\n\n     5.     Pain and suffering                    30,000\/-\n\n     6.     For discomforts & inconvenience       15,000\/-\n\n     7.     For functional disability            1,46,000\/-\n            (basis not discernible)\n                                                 -------------\n\n                                  Total          2,88,000\/-\n                                                 ======\n\n<\/pre>\n
     2.     The said amount was directed to be paid along with<\/p>\n
interest and cost. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
impugned award. What is the grievance? Called upon to explain<\/p>\n
the grounds on which the challenge is mounted, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on various<\/p>\n
grounds.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.     First of all it is contended that the monthly income<\/p>\n
reckoned by the tribunal is too low. Rs.3,500\/- was the monthly<\/p>\n
income claimed. The tribunal accepted Rs.2,500\/-. She claims to<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. No.2392\/2008            3<\/span><\/p>\n
be a Mahila Pradhan Agent.        Better and authentic evidence<\/p>\n
about the quantum of average monthly earnings is not made<\/p>\n
available to court. In these circumstances, the tribunal drew the<\/p>\n
presumption of prudence that the claimant must have been<\/p>\n
earning atleast an amount of Rs.2,500\/- p.m. We find no merit in<\/p>\n
the challenge raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.<\/p>\n
     4.     The basis on which compensation is awarded under<\/p>\n
the head of functional disability is not discernible. If Rs.2,500\/-<\/p>\n
is reckoned as the monthly income and 50% is reckoned as the<\/p>\n
extent of reduction in earning capacity, it follows that the<\/p>\n
multiplier adopted by the tribunal is marginally less than 10.<\/p>\n
Following Sarla Verma v. D.T.C [(2009)6 SCC 121], the<\/p>\n
multiplier of 14 is liable to be taken as the claimant belongs to<\/p>\n
the age group 41-45 years. Her date of birth being 19\/12\/1959<\/p>\n
and the accident having taken place on 03\/03\/2001 we agree<\/p>\n
with the learned counsel for the appellant that 14 must have<\/p>\n
been reckoned as the multiplier by the tribunal. We agree with<\/p>\n
the learned counsel that 14 must have been reckoned as the<\/p>\n
multiplier by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. No.2392\/2008            4<\/span><\/p>\n
     5. The counsel then contends that the Medical Board to<\/p>\n
whom the Tribunal had referred the claimant had assessed the<\/p>\n
extent of physical disability to be 75%. But the counsel argues<\/p>\n
that the Tribunal surprisingly reckoned the reduction of earing<\/p>\n
capacity only at 50%. This is not justified, contends the counsel.<\/p>\n
The nature of the employment of the appellant as           Mahila<\/p>\n
Pradhan Agent is such that physical movement to the prospective<\/p>\n
investors is essential. The Tribunal accepted that the appellant<\/p>\n
is unable to move about except in crutches or wheel chair. In<\/p>\n
these circumstances, the physical disability assessed by the<\/p>\n
Medical Board must have been accepted as the percentage of<\/p>\n
reduction earning capacity also, contends the counsel.<\/p>\n
     6. We have no quarrel with the proposition that physical<\/p>\n
disability cannot blindly be imported and accepted as the extent<\/p>\n
of reduction in earning capacity. The impact which physical<\/p>\n
disability causes on the earning capacity will have zealously<\/p>\n
considered and a satisfactory finding has to be entered in each<\/p>\n
case.     This is a case where the employment of the appellant<\/p>\n
requires and necessitates physical movement. 75% reduction in<\/p>\n
physical faculties is assessed by the Medial Board and accepted<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. No.2392\/2008            5<\/span><\/p>\n
by the Tribunal. We are, in these circumstances of the opinion<\/p>\n
that there was no justification in the facts of this case to reckon<\/p>\n
only 50% as the reduction earning capacity when the physical<\/p>\n
disability is competently and authentically assessed to be 75%.<\/p>\n
We take the view that 75% must have been reckoned as the<\/p>\n
extent of reduction earning capacity in the instant case.<\/p>\n
     7. The learned counsel then contends that a just and<\/p>\n
reasonable compensation has not been awarded for the loss of<\/p>\n
amenities – described as discomfort and inconvenience by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal. Physical disability suffered by an individual has two<\/p>\n
pronged reflections on the life of such a person. It may reduce<\/p>\n
the earning capacity and       it would impair the quality of<\/p>\n
enjoyment of life.     With 75% disability suffered and her<\/p>\n
movements having been affected considerably, such disability<\/p>\n
will have material impact on the quality of enjoyment of life of<\/p>\n
the claimant who was aged only about 41 years on the date of<\/p>\n
the accident.      We agree with the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant that award of an amount of Rs.15,000\/-only for<\/p>\n
compensation for loss of amenities is too low. In the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of this case, we are not satisfied that the amounts<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. No.2392\/2008            6<\/span><\/p>\n
awarded       under    other    heads    warrant      or     require<\/p>\n
modification\/upward revision.\n<\/p>\n
     8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
claimant is entitled for the following further amounts as<\/p>\n
compensation in addition to the amounts awarded by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal as per the details shown below:<\/p>\n
\n\n1)Reduction in Earning capacity\n (2500 x 12 x 75\/100 x 14)       : Rs.3,15,000 minus\n                                   Rs.1,46,000 =     Rs.1,69,000\/-\n\n2) Loss of amenities             :Rs.30,000 minus\n                                  Rs.15,000     =     Rs. 15,000\/-\n\n                                           ---------------------------\n                            Total               =     Rs.1,84,000\/-\n                                           ===============\n\n     9. In the result:\n\n     a) this appeal is allowed in part.\n\n<\/pre>\n
     b)The appellant is found entitled to a further amount<\/p>\n
     of Rs.1,84,000\/-(Rupees one lakh eighty four thousand<\/p>\n
     only) in addition to the amounts awarded by the<\/p>\n
     Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     c)Needless to say the interest shall be payable on the<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. No.2392\/2008            7<\/span><\/p>\n
     entire amount of compensation from the date of the<\/p>\n
     accident to the date of payment at the rates directed<\/p>\n
     by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
     (d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. The<\/p>\n
     Tribunal shall issue        fresh directions regarding<\/p>\n
     deposit\/release of the compensation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                      R. BASANT, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                     M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE<\/p>\n
ks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Vilasini.R.Nair vs Sunil Antony on 19 January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MACA.No. 2392 of 2008() 1. VILASINI.R.NAIR, W\/O.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, … Petitioner Vs 1. SUNIL ANTONY, KOCHAPPILLY HOUSE, … Respondent 2. JOSEPH, S\/O.KUNJU, 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, For Petitioner :SRI.K.JANARDHANAN For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) The […]<\/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-137484","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVilasini.R.Nair vs Sunil Antony on 19 January, 2010 - 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\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vilasini.R.Nair vs Sunil Antony on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-15T21:27:38+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\\\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vilasini.R.Nair vs Sunil Antony on 19 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-15T21:27:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":968,\"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\\\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Vilasini.R.Nair vs Sunil Antony on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-15T21:27:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vilasini.R.Nair vs Sunil Antony on 19 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Vilasini.R.Nair vs Sunil Antony on 19 January, 2010 - 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\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vilasini.R.Nair vs Sunil Antony on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-15T21:27:38+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\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vilasini.R.Nair vs Sunil Antony on 19 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-15T21:27:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2"},"wordCount":968,"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\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2","name":"Vilasini.R.Nair vs Sunil Antony on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-15T21:27:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vilasini-r-nair-vs-sunil-antony-on-19-january-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vilasini.R.Nair vs Sunil Antony on 19 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/137484","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=137484"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137484\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137484"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137484"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137484"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}