{"id":158917,"date":"2010-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010"},"modified":"2018-01-24T13:03:12","modified_gmt":"2018-01-24T07:33:12","slug":"p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"P.Parthasarathi vs Subramanian on 21 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
P.Parthasarathi vs Subramanian on 21 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated: 21\/04\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.238 of 2001\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.2 of 2010\n\nP.Parthasarathi\t... Appellant \/ Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n\n1. Subramanian\n2. Govindarajan\n3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,\n   through its Branch Manager,\n   Trichy.\t\t... Respondents\/ Respondents\n\n\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the\njudgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.463 of 1998, dated 31.07.2000, on the\nfile of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum the Principal District Judge,\nDindigul.\n\n!For Appellant     ... Mr.Hemakarthikeyan\t\t\n^For Respondents   ... Mr.K.Bhaskaran\n\t               for R.3\nFor R.2\t           ... No Appearance\n\n\t\t\t* * * * *\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against
\nthe judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.463 of 1998, dated 31.07.2000, on the
\nfile of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum the Principal District Judge,
\nDindigul.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The appellant travelled in a bus owned by the first respondent.  The
\nbus was insured with the third respondent.  While he was travelling in the bus,
\nthe lorry owned by the second respondent hit the bus and he lost his right hand
\nentirely and his right hand  was amputated at the shoulder level.  He suffered
\n90% permanent partial disability. The lorry was also insured with the third
\nrespondent. He filed M.C.O.P.NO.463 of 1998 claiming Rs.10,00,000\/- as
\ncompensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District
\nJudge, Dindigul. The Tribunal passed an award dated 31.07.09, holding that both
\nthe drivers of the lorry and the bus equally contributed to the accident and
\nfastened the liability on each of them at the ratio of 50% and 50%.  However
\nthat makes no difference since the third respondent is the Insurance Company for
\nboth the vehicles.  The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,84,200\/- as compensation with 12%
\ninterest and costs. The claimant seeks enhancement of compensation from
\nRs.2,84,200 to Rs.10,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Heard Mr.Hemakarthikeyan, learned Counsel for the appellant and
\nMr.K.Bhaskaran, learned Counsel for the third respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The Tribunal granted compensation under the following heads:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)  for loss of income\tRs.2,59,200\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) for medical expenses\tRs.  15,000\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii)for loss of amenities\tRs.  10,000\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t———–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tTotal\t\tRs.2,84,200\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t———–\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The learned Counsel for the appellant makes the following submissions:\n<\/p>\n
(i) The Tribunal committed error in fixing Rs.2,000\/- as monthly earnings of the
\nappellant and thereafter made 1\/3rd deduction towards personal expenses.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The Tribunal failed to award any amount towards (a) pain and sufferings,\n<\/p>\n
(b)loss of expectation of life, hardship, mental stress etc., and (c) for loss
\nof prospects of marriage.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) The Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000\/- towards loss of amenities, which is
\non lower side.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) The Tribunal awarded only Rs.15,000\/-, when the appellant produced medical
\nbills for Rs.39,755\/-.\n<\/p>\n
(v) The Tribunal failed to award any amount towards fixation of artificial hand
\nand for future medical expenses.\n<\/p>\n
(vi) The Tribunal failed to award any amount towards transportation charges and
\nfor extra nourishment.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the third respondent submits
\nthat there is no infirmity in the award and the Tribunal correctly fixed
\nRs.2,000\/- as monthly wages.  In any event, the learned Counsel fairly submits
\nthat 1\/3rd deduction could not be made in the case of injuries.  The learned
\nCounsel relies on the following decisions and submits that there is no necessity
\nto interfere in the award.\n<\/p>\n
(i) K.Narayanasamy Vs. Mukunda and Others reported in  1999 ACJ 1599(Delhi)\n<\/p>\n
(ii) New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. K.Tamil Selvi and Others reported
\nin  2002 ACJ 1810(Karnataka)\n<\/p>\n
(iii)Nnandaram Dakot Vs. Rustam and Others reported in II(2002)ACC
\n360(Rajasthan)\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Sanjeeveni Ananda Awate and Others Vs. Managing Director and Another
\nreported in 2002 ACJ 1814(Karnataka)\n<\/p>\n
(v) Farook Vs. Anil and Others reported in 2005 ACJ 271(MP)\n<\/p>\n
(vi) Divisional Controller Vs. Mahadeva Shetty reported in 2003 ACJ 1775(SC)\n<\/p>\n
(vii) Shankarappa Kubbanna Kattimani Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport
\nCorporation, reported in 2007 ACJ 2279(SC).\n<\/p>\n
(viii) M.Bhahavathi Vs. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation reported in 2005(5)
\nCTC 745.(Mad)\n<\/p>\n
(ix) Pramod Pachori Vs. Suresh Chandra reported in 2007 ACJ 564.(MP)<\/p>\n
\t7. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the
\nrecords.\n<\/p>\n
Issue No.1:\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The first issue is whether the Tribunal was correct in fixing
\nRs.2,000\/- as monthly earnings and whether the Tribunal was correct in deducting
\n1\/3rd amount towards personal expenses.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The learned Counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of the
\nHonourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Khimlibai and
\nOthers reported in 2009(2) TNMAC 256(SC) and the judgment of this Court in Tamil
\nNadu State Transport Corporation Limited Vs. S.Srinivasan and Others reported in
\n2008(1) TNMAC 151, and submits that atleast Rs.3,000\/- could be fixed as monthly
\nsalary.  According to him, in the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, the
\naccident took place in the year 1997, wherein Rs.3,000\/- was taken as monthly
\nearnings of a Carpenter.  In the another case, the accident took<\/p>\n
place in the year 1985 and the concerned person was a driver and in that case
\nRs.3,500\/- was taken as monthly earnings.  However, the learned Counsel for the
\nappellant submits that he will be satisfied if Rs.2,000\/- is taken as monthly
\nsalary without any deduction towards personal expenses.  In fact, the learned
\nCounsel for the third respondent fairly submits that in the case of injuries,
\nthere is no need to make any deduction towards personal expenses for computing
\ncompensation.  Hence, I fix the monthly salary at Rs.2,000\/- for the purpose of
\ncompensation without any deductions.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. There is no dispute over the age.  The appellant was aged about 27
\nyears at the time of the accident. There is no dispute in choosing the
\nmultiplier “18”.  Hence, the compensation towards loss of income works out to
\nRs.2,000 x 12 x 18 x 90\/100 = Rs.3,88,800\/-\n<\/p>\n
Issue No.2:\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Whether the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards (a) pain and
\nsufferings, (b)loss of expectation of life, hardship, mental stress etc., and\n<\/p>\n
(c) for loss of prospects of marriage.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The appellant lost his right hand entirely and there was amputation at
\nthe shoulder level.  In fact, the Tribunal noted in paragraph 13 of the award
\nthat right hand assumes greater importance in the human body.  Further, the
\nappellant was aged about 27 years at the time of the accident.  He was at the
\nprime stage of youth and his dreams were shattered due to the losing of right
\nhand.  In this connection, paragraph 19 of the Full Bench judgment of this Court
\nin Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited Vs. Ahmed thambi and 6 others reported in
\n2006-3 L.W.1025  is extracted herein:\n<\/p>\n
“9. In Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Para 879 states that a person
\ninjured by another’s wrong is entitled to general damages for non-pecuniary
\nloss, such as his pain and suffering and loss of amenity, and to damages for
\npecuniary loss, both past and future, including loss of earnings, medical
\nexpenses, cost of nursing care and for loss of earning capacity where he is
\nhandicapped in the labour market.  Broadly the heads of damages can be divided
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
A. Pecuniary loss:\n<\/p>\n
(1) expenses caused by the injuries;\n<\/p>\n
(2) loss of earning or profits–\n<\/p>\n
(a) from the date of accident till the date of trail\n<\/p>\n
(b) prospective loss\n<\/p>\n
(c) incidental expenses.\n<\/p>\n
B. Non-pecuniary loss:\n<\/p>\n
(1) pain and sufferings
\n(2) loss of amenities of life
\n(3) loss of expectation of life
\n\tThe normal practice is to itemise the award broadly while keeping an eye
\non the whole, to be just and fair.  Further the<\/p>\n
amount awarded must be liberal and not meager since the law values life and limb
\nin a free society on generous scales.  However, all these elements have to be
\nviewed with objective standards.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court,
\nthe appellant is entitled to compensation towards (a) pain and sufferings,\n<\/p>\n
(b)loss of expectation of life, hardship, mental stress etc., and (c) for loss
\nof prospect of marriage.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has
\nto be awarded Rs.1,00,000\/- under each head.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The learned Counsel for the third respondent relies on the above said
\njudgments in paragraph 6 and opposes against granting compensation under the
\nheads as sought for by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. In my view, in the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the
\nthird respondent, there is no law laid down relating to the compensation for\n<\/p>\n
(a) pain and sufferings, (b)loss of expectation of life, hardship, mental stress
\netc., and (c) loss of prospects of marriage.  In fact, in the judgment of the
\nApex Court in Divisional controller Vs. Mahadeva Shetty reported in 2003 ACJ
\n1775, relied on by the learned Counsel for the third respondent supports the
\ncase of the appellant.  The appellant is entitled to compensation towards (a)
\npain and sufferings, (b)loss of expectation of life, hardship, mental stress
\netc., and (c) loss of prospects of marriage, in the light of the decision of
\nFull Bench of this Court read with the Honourable  Apex Court relied on by the
\nlearned Counsel for the third respondent.  However, I am not inclined to grant
\nRs.1,00,000\/- under each head as sought for by the appellant.  I am inclined to
\ngrant Rs.75,000\/- under each head.\n<\/p>\n
Issue No.3:\n<\/p>\n
\t17. Whether the Tribunal was correct in awarding only Rs.10,000\/- towards
\nloss of amenities, which is on lower side.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Taking into account that the appellant lost his right hand and that he
\nwas aged 27 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000\/-
\ntowards loss of amenities, which is on the lower side.  It is stated that he is
\npractising as an Advocate before this Court. I am inclined to grant Rs.75,000\/-,
\nwhile the appellant sought Rs.1,00,000\/- under this head.\n<\/p>\n
Issue No.4:\n<\/p>\n
\t19. Whether the Tribunal was correct in awarding only Rs.15,000\/-, when
\nthe appellant produced medical bills for Rs.39,755\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. The claim of the appellant is to reimburse him the entire medical
\nexpenses. In fact, the learned Counsel for the third respondent fairly submits
\nthat the third respondent has no objection to grant Rs.39,755\/- as claimed by
\nthe appellant based on the medical bills. Hence, the same is awarded.\n<\/p>\n
Issue No.5:\n<\/p>\n
\t 21. Whether the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards fixation of
\nartificial hand and for future medical expenses.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that he produced Ex.A.1
\nrelating to the estimation of fixation of artificial limb.  According to Ex.A.1,
\nthe estimation is Rs.3,80,000\/-.  However, the learned Counsel for the third
\nrespondent submits that the third respondent has no objection to award
\nRs.50,000\/- towards fixation of artificial limb.  The learned Counsel for the
\nappellant has no objection to restrict his claim to Rs.50,000\/- under this head.
\nHence, Rs.50,000\/- is awarded towards fixation of artificial hand.
\nIssue No.6:\n<\/p>\n
\t23. Whether the Tribunal  failed to award any amount towards
\ntransportation charges and for extra nourishment.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. As there is no amount awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation
\ncharges and for extra nourishment, I am inclined to grant Rs.25,000\/- for both
\nheads.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. Therefore, the following compensation is fixed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)  for loss of income\tRs. 3,88,800\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) pain and sufferings\tRs. 1,00,000\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii)loss of expectation
\n\t\tof life, hardship,
\n\t\tmental stress etc., \tRs. 1,00,000<\/p>\n
 \t(iv) for loss of prospects \tRs. 1,00,000
\n\t\tof marriage\n<\/p>\n
\t(v)  for loss of amenities
\n\t      and enjoyment in life\tRs.   75,000\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) for medical expenses\tRs.   39,755\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii) for fixation of
\n\t\tartificial limb\t        Rs.   50,000\n<\/p>\n
\t(viii)for transportation
\n\t\tcharges and for
\n\t\textra nourishment\tRs.   25,000\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t————\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tTotal\t\tRs. 8,78,555\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t————\n<\/p>\n
\t26.  The third respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit
\nRs.5,94,355\/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of application, within a
\nperiod of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Civil
\nMiscellaneous Petition is allowed in the above terms. consequently, the
\nconnected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
ssl<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
\nthe Principal District Judge,
\nDindigul.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court P.Parthasarathi vs Subramanian on 21 April, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 21\/04\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN C.M.A.(MD)No.238 of 2001 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2010 P.Parthasarathi … Appellant \/ Petitioner Vs. 1. Subramanian 2. Govindarajan 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Trichy. … Respondents\/ […]<\/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-158917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.Parthasarathi vs Subramanian on 21 April, 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\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Parthasarathi vs Subramanian on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-24T07:33:12+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Parthasarathi vs Subramanian on 21 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-24T07:33:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1872,\"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\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010\",\"name\":\"P.Parthasarathi vs Subramanian on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-24T07:33:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Parthasarathi vs Subramanian on 21 April, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"P.Parthasarathi vs Subramanian on 21 April, 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\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Parthasarathi vs Subramanian on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-24T07:33:12+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Parthasarathi vs Subramanian on 21 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-24T07:33:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010"},"wordCount":1872,"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\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010","name":"P.Parthasarathi vs Subramanian on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-24T07:33:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathi-vs-subramanian-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Parthasarathi vs Subramanian on 21 April, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/158917","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=158917"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158917\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}