{"id":160680,"date":"2010-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-08-23T19:20:47","modified_gmt":"2018-08-23T13:50:47","slug":"ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ponnamma vs N.Subramanian on 9 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Ponnamma vs N.Subramanian on 9 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMACA.No. 23 of 2005()\n\n\n1. PONNAMMA, AGED 65 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. PADMAVATHY, AGED 46 YEARS,\n3. SANTHAKUMARI, AGED 42 YEARS,\n4. VILASINI, AGED 37 YEARS,\n5. BALASUBRAMANIAN, AGED 32 YEARS,\n6. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 29 YEARS,\n7. RAJALAKSHMI, AGED 27 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. N.SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 36 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC.,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI\n\n Dated :09\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                     A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.\n\n            ------------------------------------------------------\n\n                     M.A.C.A.23\/2005 & 1107\/2004\n\n            ------------------------------------------------------\n\n                           Dated: JULY 9, 2010\n\n                                  JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Barkath Ali, J.\n<\/p>\n
      Both these appeals under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act arise<\/p>\n
out of same judgment and award of the              Motor Accidents Claims<\/p>\n
Tribunal, Ottappalam in OP(MV) 263\/2002               dated May 4, 2004.<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A.23\/2005 is filed by the claimant and M.A.C.A. 1107\/2004 is<\/p>\n
filed by the 2nd respondent, KSRTC.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The facts leading to these appeals in brief are these: The<\/p>\n
claimants    are the wife, major sons and daughters of deceased<\/p>\n
Kunchutharakan.      The deceased was aged 72 at the time of the<\/p>\n
accident and was an agriculturist earning Rs.3000\/- per month,<\/p>\n
according to the claimants.         On    December 11, 2001 at        about<\/p>\n
9.45 a.m. the deceased was standing on the southern side of<\/p>\n
Cherupalchery – Palakkad road at Mangode.             At that time he was<\/p>\n
knocked down by the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KL15\/1390.<\/p>\n
The deceased sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the<\/p>\n
injuries sustained while undergoing treatment at Amala Hospital on<\/p>\n
December 27, 2001.           According to the claimants the accident<\/p>\n
occurred due to the     negligence on the part of the 1st        respondent,<\/p>\n
driver of the KSRTC bus.      The 1st respondent as the driver and the<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A.23\/2005 & 1107\/2004
\n                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
2nd respondent as the owner of the offending bus are jointly and<\/p>\n
severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants who are the legal<\/p>\n
heirs and dependents of the deceased.         The claimants claimed a<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.2,50,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
      3. Respondents 1 and 2 in their written statement admitted the<\/p>\n
accident, but contended that there was no negligence on the part of<\/p>\n
the 1st respondent and that the accident occurred while the deceased<\/p>\n
attempted to cross the road suddenly.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   PW.1 was examined and      Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on<\/p>\n
the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 was<\/p>\n
examined as RW.1 on the side of the respondents.                On an<\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred<\/p>\n
due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and awarded<\/p>\n
a compensation of Rs.1,15,650\/- with interest @ 9% per annum from<\/p>\n
the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.1250\/-.     The<\/p>\n
claimants have now      in   M.A.C.A.23\/2005 claimed enhancement of<\/p>\n
the compensation awarded.        The 2nd respondent KSRTC has filed<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. 1107\/2004      contending that the compensation awarded is<\/p>\n
excessive.\n<\/p>\n
     5.     Heard the counsel for the appellants in both these appeals.<\/p>\n
As both these appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A.23\/2005 & 1107\/2004
\n                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
disposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     6.     The counsel for the claimants submitted that the<\/p>\n
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and claimed<\/p>\n
enhancement of the compensation for the loss of dependency, pain<\/p>\n
and suffering endured by the deceased, loss of consortium, towards<\/p>\n
medical expenses and for loss of love and affection.<\/p>\n
     7. Counsel for the appellant in MACA 1107\/2004 i.e. KSRTC<\/p>\n
submitted that the compensation awarded           is excessive as the<\/p>\n
deceased was aged 72 at the time of the accident.           He further<\/p>\n
contended that the Tribunal should have believed the evidence of<\/p>\n
RW.1, driver of the bus, and held that the accident occurred while the<\/p>\n
deceased attempted to cross the road.\n<\/p>\n
     8. The following points arise for consideration:<\/p>\n
           I. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident<\/p>\n
           occurred due to negligence on the part of the 1st<\/p>\n
           respondent can be sustained?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n           II. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is<\/p>\n
           excessive?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n           III.   If not, whether the claimants are entitled to any<\/p>\n
           enhanced compensation?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
M.A.C.A.23\/2005 & 1107\/2004
\n                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
      9. On the side of the claimants PW.1, the 6th respondent, was<\/p>\n
examined.     The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of RW.1, driver of<\/p>\n
the KSRTC bus, that the accident occurred when the deceased<\/p>\n
suddenly attempted to cross the road, for obvious reasons. Further,<\/p>\n
police has charged a case against the 1st respondent.       Therefore we<\/p>\n
find no reason to come to a different conclusion. In our view the<\/p>\n
Tribunal is perfectly justified in finding that the accident occurred due<\/p>\n
to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent.<\/p>\n
      10.      The   Tribunal    awarded     a   total  compensation   of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,15,650\/-.     The break up of the compensation awarded is as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
loss of dependency                         - Rs.60,000\/-\n\npain and sufferings                         -    10,000\/-\n\nbystander's expenses                        -     2,250\/-\n\nmedical expenses                            -    33,400\/-\n\nloss of consortium                          -     5,000\/-\n\nloss of estate and funeral expenses         -     5,000\/-\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
      11.     The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as<\/p>\n
Rs.1500\/-.    After deducting 1\/3rd for his personal expenses, the<\/p>\n
balance amount of Rs.1000\/- is taken as his monthly contribution to<\/p>\n
his family, which comes to Rs.12,000\/- per annum.             Taking into<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A.23\/2005 & 1107\/2004
\n                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
consideration the age of the deceased, a multiplier of 5 was adopted<\/p>\n
and the Tribunal granted Rs.60,000\/- towards loss of dependency.<\/p>\n
Taking into consideration the age of the claimants and the fact that the<\/p>\n
children are all major and married persons,         we feel that the<\/p>\n
compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is<\/p>\n
reasonable and not excessive.\n<\/p>\n
      12.   The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000\/- towards pain and<\/p>\n
suffering endured by the deceased which appears to be very low. The<\/p>\n
deceased died about 16 days after the incident. Therefore we feel that<\/p>\n
a compensation of Rs.15,000\/- would be reasonable for the pain and<\/p>\n
suffering endured by the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
      13.    Towards    medical   expenses    the   Tribunal   awarded<\/p>\n
Rs.33,400\/-.   But the claimants produced bills worth Rs.61,865\/-,<\/p>\n
according to the claimants.     That apart, the deceased was in the<\/p>\n
hospital for 16 days.   Therefore we feel that a     compensation of<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/- would be reasonable towards medical expenses.<\/p>\n
      14.  Rs.5000\/- was awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of<\/p>\n
consortium which appears to be quite inadequate.                In the<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, we feel that a compensation of Rs.10,000\/-<\/p>\n
would be reasonable on this count.\n<\/p>\n
      15. No compensation was awarded by the Tribunal for loss of<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A.23\/2005 & 1107\/2004
\n                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
love and affection. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased<\/p>\n
and the claimants, we feel that a compensation of Rs.15,000\/- would<\/p>\n
be reasonable for loss of love and affection.<\/p>\n
      16.   Thus the claimants are found entitled to an additional<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.41,600\/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the<\/p>\n
date of petition till realisation.\n<\/p>\n
       As we have found that the compensation awarded by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal is not excessive and awarded enhancement of the<\/p>\n
compensation, M.A.C.A.1107\/2004 is dismissed and M.A.C.A.23\/2005<\/p>\n
is disposed of as found above. The 2nd     respondent in the O.P., who<\/p>\n
is the appellant in M.A.C.A.1107\/2004 shall deposit the enhanced<\/p>\n
compensation with interest and costs within two months from the date<\/p>\n
of   receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the claimants.<\/p>\n
The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent.<\/p>\n
                                         A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                         P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE<\/p>\n
mt\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Ponnamma vs N.Subramanian on 9 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MACA.No. 23 of 2005() 1. PONNAMMA, AGED 65 YEARS, … Petitioner 2. PADMAVATHY, AGED 46 YEARS, 3. SANTHAKUMARI, AGED 42 YEARS, 4. VILASINI, AGED 37 YEARS, 5. BALASUBRAMANIAN, AGED 32 YEARS, 6. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 29 YEARS, 7. […]<\/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-160680","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPonnamma vs N.Subramanian on 9 July, 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\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ponnamma vs N.Subramanian on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-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=\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-23T13:50:47+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\\\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ponnamma vs N.Subramanian on 9 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-23T13:50:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1100,\"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\\\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Ponnamma vs N.Subramanian on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-23T13:50:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ponnamma vs N.Subramanian on 9 July, 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":"Ponnamma vs N.Subramanian on 9 July, 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\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ponnamma vs N.Subramanian on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-23T13:50:47+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\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ponnamma vs N.Subramanian on 9 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-23T13:50:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010"},"wordCount":1100,"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\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010","name":"Ponnamma vs N.Subramanian on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-23T13:50:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamma-vs-n-subramanian-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ponnamma vs N.Subramanian on 9 July, 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\/160680","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=160680"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160680\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160680"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160680"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160680"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}