{"id":1403,"date":"2008-01-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008"},"modified":"2014-01-14T22:48:23","modified_gmt":"2014-01-14T17:18:23","slug":"the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"The General Manager vs Senthilkumar on 3 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The General Manager vs Senthilkumar on 3 January, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 03\/01\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.988 of 2007\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007\n\nThe General Manager,\nTamil Nadu State\nTransport Corporation Limited,\nPudukottai.\t\t\t\t\t .. Appellant\n\nVs\n\n1.Senthilkumar\n2.Sivakumari (insanity)\n  (R2 represented through\n   his brother R1)\n3.Gnanakumari\t\t\t    \t\t .. Respondent\n\nPrayer\n\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the\nJudgement and Decree dated 28.12.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.895 of 2004 by the\nlearned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Additional District Judge, Fast\nTrack Court, Pudukottai.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t\t\t... Mr.M.Prakash\n\n^For Respondents\t\t\t... Mr.R.P.Rama Chanthiran\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis appeal is focussed as against the Judgement and Decree dated<br \/>\n28.12.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.895 of 2004 by the learned Motor Accidents<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal-cum-the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukottai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the<br \/>\nlearned counsel appearing for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The Tribunal vide Judgement dated 28.12.2006 awarded compensation to a<br \/>\ntune of Rs.3,31,783\/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty four thousand seven hundred and<br \/>\neighty three only) under the following sub-heads:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor loss of income\t-Rs.2,70,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor loss of love and<br \/>\n\t\taffection\t\t-Rs.  15,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor funeral expenses\t\t-Rs.   2,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor medical expenses<br \/>\n\t\t(Ex.P4)\t\t\t-Rs.  44,058\/-<\/p>\n<pre>\n\tFor medical expenses\n\t\t(Ex.P5)\t\t\t-Rs.     400\/-\n\tFor medical expenses\n\t\t(Ex.P6)\t\t\t-Rs.     325\/-\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t--------------\n\t\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.\t3,31,783\/-\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t--------------\t\n\t\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t4. The gist and kernel of the grounds of appeal as stood exposited from<br \/>\nthe memorandum of appeal could be set out thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Tribunal without taking into consideration the contributory negligence<br \/>\non the part of the deceased\/cyclist, simply fixed the entire responsibility on<br \/>\nthe bus driver.  The bus driver&#8217;s evidence as RW1, was not at all considered by<br \/>\nthe Tribunal, whereas it believed the version of PW1, the alleged eye witness to<br \/>\nthe occurrence.  The compensation awarded is on the higher side.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The points for consideration are (i) whether the deceased\/cyclist also<br \/>\ncontributed for the accident? and if so to what extent? and (ii) whether the<br \/>\ncompensation awarded by the Tribunal is &#8216;just and proper&#8217;?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Point(i):\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation by placing<br \/>\nreliance on the deposition of RW1, the driver of the bus would develop his<br \/>\narguments to the effect that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the<br \/>\ndriver of the bus was the appropriate witness to speak as to what happened at<br \/>\nthe time of the accident and that the Tribunal simply in an utopian manner<br \/>\nexpected the Transport Corporation to produce documents to prove its case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation would look<br \/>\naskance at such a view taken by the Tribunal by arguing that there cannot be any<br \/>\ndocument to prove that the driver of the bus was not at fault.  Perhaps the<br \/>\nTribunal in its own way simply remarked in such a manner exposing itself its<br \/>\ncriticism.  Be that as it may, the passenger in the vehicle might have been a<br \/>\ngood witness to speak about the accident.  But for reasons best known to the<br \/>\nTransport Corporation, no passenger, who was travelling at that time in that<br \/>\nbus, was examined.  Furthermore, the very accident took place in a busy area, so<br \/>\nto say just in front of the bus stand, where normally people throng the place.<br \/>\nWhen on the side of the claimants PW2, the eye witness, who was standing nearby<br \/>\nthe place of the accident, was examined before the Tribunal, absolutely there<br \/>\nwas no reason for not examining any independent witness.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Now the appeal has been filed challenging the reasonings of the<br \/>\nTribunal purely based on the evidence given by its driver RW1.  The best<br \/>\nevidence which is available and which could have been produced before the<br \/>\nTribunal, when not produced, the appellant Transport Corporation cannot be heard<br \/>\nto contend that the interested testimony of the driver alone should be relied on<br \/>\nfor modifying the award.  The Tribunal by relying on the evidence of PW2 would<br \/>\ngive its findings to the effect that the deceased was proceeding on his cycle<br \/>\nfrom west to east along the main road and at that time the bus which came out of<br \/>\nthe bus stand turned presumably towards west and when it was negotiating along<br \/>\nthe road towards Trichy direction, the accident occurred.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation would<br \/>\nstress upon the fact that virtually the bus driver was waiting for the signal<br \/>\nand after getting signal he moved the bus from the bus stand and that too after<br \/>\ncrossing the bumper\/ speed breaker and in such a case there could not have been<br \/>\nany rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver.  The very same set of<br \/>\nfacts would speak against the driver for the reason that despite all those<br \/>\nsafeguards taken by the State\/the traffic Police concerned, this accident<br \/>\noccurred.  &#8220;Heavier the vehicle, heavier is the responsibility&#8221; is the well<br \/>\nknown proposition.  Here, the bus driver in such a busy place, which is very<br \/>\nnear the bus stand should have been extra ordinarily careful in seeing that even<br \/>\nunwary cyclists or passengers are not injured.  It is common knowledge or trite<br \/>\nproposition that in bus stand area there will be mixed traffic.  In such<br \/>\ncircumstances, the driver of the passenger vehicle should have been careful; had<br \/>\nhe been a bit more careful the accident could have been averted.  For the<br \/>\nreasons adverted to above, absolutely there is no evidence on the side of the<br \/>\nTransport Corporation to contend that the deceased was at fault or that he<br \/>\ninvited the accident.  PW2, an independent witness was examined on the side of<br \/>\nthe claimants and in such a case, the Tribunal out of the two witnesses PW2 vis-<br \/>\na-vis RW1, it preferred the evidence of PW2, an independent witness and in such<br \/>\na case, I am having no reason to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal.<br \/>\nAccordingly, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted<br \/>\nrelating to the finding of the Tribunal in fixing the full responsibility on the<br \/>\ndriver of the bus.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.Point (ii):\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned counsel for the appellant Transport Corporation would submit<br \/>\nthat here the claimants are only major sons and married daughter altogether<br \/>\nthree in number, who do not require compensation at all as they were expected to<br \/>\neke out their own livelihood without depending upon the income of the deceased,<br \/>\nwhereas the learned counsel for the respondents\/ claimants by drawing the<br \/>\nattention of this Court to the very cause title of the petition itself would<br \/>\nargue that the second petitioner is an insane person and certainly he requires<br \/>\nconsiderable amount for his  maintenance.  The learned counsel for the appellant<br \/>\nTransport Corporation would try to torpedo such an argument of the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondents\/claimants on the ground that absolutely there is no<br \/>\nmedical evidence in support of the contention of the second petitioner that he<br \/>\nis an insane for which the learned counsel for the respondents\/claimants would<br \/>\nconvincingly and correctly reply that when there was no challenge to the said<br \/>\nfact, there was no necessity also for the claimants to adduce medical evidence.<br \/>\nThe perusal of the petition would show that the second petitioner was described<br \/>\nas an insane person represented by his brother, the first petitioner and that<br \/>\nfact was accepted by the Tribunal also and in such a case the Tribunal cannot be<br \/>\nfound fault with in awarding such a compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The Tribunal also by placing reliance on the certificate issued by the<br \/>\nGovernment authorities to the effect that the deceased was getting the pension<br \/>\nof Rs.6732\/- (Rupees six thousand seven hundred and thirty two only) per month,<br \/>\ntook up the said amount as the criterion for assessing the compensation after<br \/>\ndeducting 1\/3 of it.  Such a method adopted by the Tribunal cannot be found<br \/>\nfault with because the Tribunal taking a cue from the Second Schedule appended<br \/>\nto the Motor Vehicles Act, has chosen the multiplier 5 as the deceased was aged<br \/>\nabout 64 years old at the relevant time of the accident.  Certainly but for his<br \/>\nuntimely death he would have lived for more than five years and got the pension<br \/>\namounts and provided adequate monetary assistance to the petitioners including<br \/>\nthe second petitioner.  As such absolutely there is no reason to give any<br \/>\nfinding contrary to what the Tribunal adjudged in this matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Under other sub heads, based on documentary evidence the Tribunal<br \/>\nawarded just compensation.  Based on medical receipts a sum of Rs.45,000\/-<br \/>\n(Rupees forty five thousand only) was awarded which cannot be found fault with<br \/>\nas after the accident, the deceased took treatment for about three weeks.  It is<br \/>\na case of head injury and that head injury actually resulted in the death of the<br \/>\ndeceased after three weeks.  Hence, considering all these facts, I am having no<br \/>\nreason to interfere with the award.  Consequently the award is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. I, therefore do not find any merit in this Appeal and accordingly it<br \/>\nis dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed. No costs. Consequently,<br \/>\nthe connected M.P. is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>smn<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum<br \/>\nthe the Additional District Judge,<br \/>\nFast Track Court,<br \/>\nPudukottai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The General Manager vs Senthilkumar on 3 January, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03\/01\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD)No.988 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007 The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Pudukottai. .. Appellant Vs 1.Senthilkumar 2.Sivakumari (insanity) (R2 represented through his brother [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1403","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The General Manager vs Senthilkumar on 3 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The General Manager vs Senthilkumar on 3 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-01-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-14T17:18:23+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The General Manager vs Senthilkumar on 3 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-14T17:18:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1430,\"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\\\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008\",\"name\":\"The General Manager vs Senthilkumar on 3 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-14T17:18:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The General Manager vs Senthilkumar on 3 January, 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":"The General Manager vs Senthilkumar on 3 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The General Manager vs Senthilkumar on 3 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-14T17:18:23+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The General Manager vs Senthilkumar on 3 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-14T17:18:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008"},"wordCount":1430,"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\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008","name":"The General Manager vs Senthilkumar on 3 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-14T17:18:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-general-manager-vs-senthilkumar-on-3-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The General Manager vs Senthilkumar on 3 January, 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\/1403","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=1403"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1403\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1403"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1403"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1403"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}