{"id":166973,"date":"2007-06-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007"},"modified":"2014-06-14T22:59:19","modified_gmt":"2014-06-14T17:29:19","slug":"rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"Rajan Kuttil Nayar Alias Rajan … vs Tamil Nadu State Transport … on 22 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Rajan Kuttil Nayar Alias Rajan … vs Tamil Nadu State Transport … on 22 June, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 22\/06\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR\n\nC.M.A.(MD).No.1556 of 2000\n\nRajan Kuttil Nayar alias Rajan Pillai\t.. Appellant\n\nVs.\n\n\n1.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,\n  (Madurai Division 2) Ltd.,\n  through its Managing Director,\n  Vallarpettai,\n  Tirunelveli.\n\n2.Mahaboob\n\n3.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,\n  Panthalam Thitta Branch,\n  Kerala State.\t\t\t \t.. Respondents\n\n\n\tCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles\nAct against the decree and order dated 20.04.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.163 of 1995\non the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Judge,\nTenkasi.\n\n!For Appellant\t     \t...\tMr.Abdul Wahab\n\n^For 1st Respondent    \t... \tMr.D.Sivaraman\n\t\t\t  \tFor Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil\n\t\t\t\nFor 3rd Respondent    \t... \tMr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai\n\t\t\t\tFor Mr.R.Kumara Raja\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Motor
\nAccident Claims Tribunal, (Additional Subordinate Judge), Tenkasi, dated
\n20.04.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.163 of 1995.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The unsuccessful claimant in M.C.O.P.No.163 of 1995  before the Motor
\nAccident Claims Tribunal, (Additional Subordinate Judge), Tenkasi is the
\nappellant herein. Pursuant to an accident that took place on 04.11.1994, the
\nappellant\/claimant preferred the above said claim petition under Sections 166
\nand 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/- as
\ncompensation from the respondents herein. The appellant\/claimant was the driver
\nof  one of the vehicles involved in the accident, the lorry bearing registration
\nNo.KEK-8569, of which the second respondent was the owner and the third
\nrespondent was the insurer during the relevant period. On the above said date at
\nabout 02.50 p.m. at a place on the east of old Alangulam bus stop, the said
\nvehicle driven by the appellant\/claimant involved in a head-on collision with
\nthe passenger bus belonging to the first respondent Transport Corporation having
\nRegistration No.TN-72-N-0251. Contending that there was no fault on the part of
\nthe appellant\/claimant and that while he was driving the lorry carefully at a
\nmoderate speed, the driver of the bus belonging to the first respondent drove it
\nin a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident by hitting the lorry
\ndriven by the claimant on its front side; that the said accident took place
\nsolely due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the first
\nrespondent and that in the said accident, the appellant\/claimant sustained
\ngrievous injuries which  later on led to permanent disability, the
\nappellant\/claimant preferred M.C.O.P. However, the appellant\/claimant chose to
\nmake the claim against all the three respondents praying for an award directing
\nthem to jointly and severally pay the above said sum of RS.1,00,000\/- together
\nwith an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim till
\nrealisation and with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The claim was resisted by the first respondent Transport Corporation
\ncontending that it was the appellant\/claimant who acted with rashness and
\nnegligence in driving the lorry; that only due to his rash and negligent
\ndriving, he met with the accident; that there was no rashness or negligence on
\nthe part of the driver of the bus belonging to the first respondent and that
\nhence the appellant\/claimant was not entitled to get any amount as compensation
\nfrom the first respondent Transport Corporation. The second respondent, owner of
\nthe lorry involved in the accident, of which the appellant\/claimant was the
\ndriver did not contest the claim and remained exparte. The third respondent
\nherein, insurer of the said lorry resisted the claim contending that the
\nappellant\/claimant shall not be entitled to make any claim against the owner of
\nthe vehicle and the insurer of the vehicle,as the accident itself took place due
\nto his own negligence. It was also contended before the Tribunal on behalf of
\nthe third respondent that  he was debarred from making any claim for
\ncompensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, since the appellant\/claimant
\nhad exercised his option to make a claim under the provisions of the Motor
\nVehicles Act and that no award could be passed against either the second
\nrespondent or the third respondent in such circumstances under the Workmen’s
\nCompensation Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. In order to sustain his claim, the appellant\/claimant, besides
\nexamining himself as P.W.1, examined Dr.Veda Moorthy as P.W.2 and relied on
\nseven documents marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On the side of the respondents, only one
\nwitness was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. At the conclusion of enquiry, after hearing the arguments advanced on
\nboth sides and framing necessary points for consideration, the Tribunal
\nscrutinised the evidence on record, both oral and documentary and dismissed the
\nclaim in its entirety. The Tribunal held that: (i) there was no negligence on
\nthe part of the driver of the bus belonging to the first respondent Transport
\nCorporation; (2) the appellant\/claimant alone was at fault and it was due to his
\nrashness and negligence, the accident took place; (3) the first respondent
\nTransport Corporation was not liable to pay any compensation and (4) the claim
\nagainst the second and third respondents should also fail because the
\nappellant\/claimant could not claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act
\nagainst his employer for his own fault and compensation under Workmen’s
\nCompensation Act also could not be awarded by the Tribunal, as the
\nappellant\/claimant had exercised his option to make the claim under the
\nprovisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In line with the above said findings, the
\nTribunal dismissed M.C.O.P. in its entirety by its Judgment dated 20.04.2000.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Aggrieved by and challenging the above said Judgment and decree of the
\nTribunal dated 20.04.2000, the appellant\/claimant has brought forth this civil
\nmiscellaneous appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel
\nwould submit that the Tribunal committed an error in holding the
\nappellant\/claimant alone was responsible for the accident; that the Tribunal
\nfailed to properly appreciate the evidence and come to a correct conclusion
\nregarding the question of negligence; that the finding of the Tribunal to the
\neffect that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and
\nthat it was only due to the negligence on the part of the appellant\/claimant the
\naccident took place is against law and evidence and that hence the said finding
\nof the Tribunal should be upset in the hands of this Court. Contending further,
\nthe learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even assuming that the
\nappellant\/claimant had not substantiated his contention regarding the negligence
\non the part of the driver of the bus, the award of the Tribunal could not be
\nlegally sustained in so far as the Tribunal failed to uphold the respondents’
\nliability at least to the extent of the no fault liability provided under
\nSection 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that viewed from any angle, the
\nJudgment and decree of the Tribunal could not stand the scrutiny of law and that
\nhence the same should be set aside and an award should be passed as prayed for
\nby the appellant\/claimant.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
\nfirst and third respondents in reply to the above said submissions made on
\nbehalf of the appellant and paid its anxious considerations to the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The fact that the accident took place on 04.11.1994 in which the
\nappellant\/claimant sustained injuries is not in dispute. It was an accident
\ninvolving collision of two vehicles proceeding towards the spot of accident from
\ntwo different directions. The passenger bus bearing registration No.TN-72-N-0251
\nbelonging to the first respondent was proceeding on the east-west road in the
\ndirection of east to west. The appellant\/claimant was driving the other vehicle
\ninvolved in the accident, namely, the lorry bearing registration No.KEK-8569
\nbelonging to the second respondent, in the opposite direction – from west to
\neast. At the place of accident, the front right side corner part of both the
\nvehicles came into contact with each other. All the above said facts are not
\ndisputed. Who was responsible for the accident and which of the true drivers was
\nat fault is the bone of contention in this case. According to the
\nappellant\/claimant, it was the driver of the bus belonging to the first
\nrespondent who drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the
\naccident. But according to the contesting respondents, namely, the respondents 1
\nand 3, there was no fault on the part of the driver of the bus and it was  due
\nto the negligence on the part of the appellant\/claimant in driving the lorry,
\nthe accident took place. In support of their rival contentions, one witness each
\nwas examined on either side. They are: P.W.1, the claimant himself and R.W.1,
\nthe driver of the bus belonging to the first respondent. Of course, both the
\nwitnesses are interested witnesses. Therefore, before accepting their testimony,
\nthe test of careful scrutiny should be applied.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The appellant\/claimant, while deposing as P.W.1, would contend that he
\nwas proceeding in the direction of west to east driving the lorry carefully and
\nat a moderate speed and that it was the driver of the bus which came in the
\nopposite direction drove it at a high speed with rashness and negligence, dashed
\nit against the lorry and thus caused the accident. But except the fact that the
\nappellant\/claimant was acquitted in the criminal case registered against him by
\nthe police, there is no other document to corroborate his evidence and support
\nhis case that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus
\nbelonging to the first respondent. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of the licence
\nto show that the appellant\/claimant possessed a valid driving licence at the
\ntime of accident. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of the First Information Report
\nregistered by the police concerning the accident in question. A case was
\nregistered based on the complaint of the conductor of the first respondent’s bus
\nin Crime No.727 of 1994 on the file of Alangulam Police Station against the
\nappellant\/claimant for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC.
\nEx.A.3 is the accident register issued to the appellant\/claimant. The said
\ndocument is not helpful to arrive at a decision who was at fault. Ex.A.4 is the
\ncertificate copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report which shows that the
\nfront right side body of both the vehicles were found damaged at the time of
\ninspection and that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect in either
\nof the vehicles involved in the accident. The same also does not lend any help
\nto the appellant\/claimant to prove his contention that the driver of the bus was
\nat fault.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The relevant documents are Exs.A.2 and A.5 to A.7. Among the four
\ndocuments, Ex.A.7 is the certified copy of the Judgment of the criminal Court by
\nwhich the appellant\/claimant was acquitted in the criminal case registered in
\nconnection with the accident. Ex.A.6 is the certified copy of the charge sheet.
\nFrom Exs.A.6 and A.7, it is obvious that the appellant\/claimant was prosecuted
\nfor offences punishable under Sections 279,337 and 338 IPC and was at last
\nacquitted in the criminal case. The acquittal was not an honourable acquittal
\nbut was one giving the benefit of doubt to the accused. It is well established
\nprinciple that the Judgment of the criminal Court is not binding on the civil
\nCourt or the Tribunal and the same is not even relevant in a civil case or a
\nmotor accident claim case, except to the extent of showing that there was a
\nprosecution which ended in conviction or acquittal. There may be many reasons
\nfor a criminal case ending in acquittal. The decree of proof required in a
\ncriminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in civil cases and motor
\naccident claim cases, it is not so. There, the issues are to be decided on
\nprobabilities. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the learned
\ncounsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have relied on Ex.A.7 and
\nfound the appellant\/claimant not at fault and as a necessary corollary should
\nhave held the driver of the bus to be at fault. The said contention is liable to
\nbe discountenanced. At least against the appellant\/claimant, there was the
\naccusation of having caused the accident by rash and negligent driving of the
\nvehicle, whereas there was no such accusation against the driver of the bus. In
\nfact, since the driver of the bus had got injured, the conductor went to the
\npolice station and lodged the complaint, based on which the case was registered
\nagainst the appellant\/claimant. The same is evidenced from Ex.A.2.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. It is a fact, that could be ascertained from the records that the
\nappellant\/claimant did not lodge any complaint with the police regarding the
\naccident in this case. But while deposing as P.W.1, the appellant\/claimant had
\ngone to the extent of stating that after the accident he went to Alangulam
\nPolice station and lodged a complaint and that he was sent by the police to the
\nhospital only after receiving his complaint. It is very hard to believe and
\naccept the said evidence of P.W.1 in the absence of any other corroborating
\nevidence, when it directly contradicts with the documentary evidence produced on
\nthe side of the appellant\/claimant himself. The very attempt made by the
\nappellant\/claimant to set a concoction will improbabalise his case and
\nprobabalise the contention of the respondents. Ex.A.5 – certified copy of the
\nobservation mahazar will disprove the contention of the appellant\/claimant in
\nthis regard and lends support to the case of the respondents that it was the
\nappellant\/claimant who was at fault. It is evident from Ex.A.5 that the total
\nwidth of the road including mud road (on either side to a width of six feet) was
\n34 feet and the tar portion alone was 22 feet. The bus was found on its proper
\n(left side of the road) and it was the lorry that had gone to its wrong side
\n(right side of the road) and dashed against the bus. Tyre marks of the bus to a
\nlength of 7 feet was found behind the bus showing that the driver of the bus
\napplied break before the impact. On the other hand, no tyre-mark was found
\nbehind the lorry. It goes to show that it was the driver of the lorry who came
\nin a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus. The particulars found
\nin Exs.A.2 and A.4 lend corroboration to the testimony of R.W.1, the driver of
\nthe bus involved in the accident. His evidence has withstood the test of careful
\nscrutiny. As the evidence of R.W.1 stands corroborated by the contents of
\nExs.A.2 and A.5, the documents produced on the side of the appellant\/claimant
\nhimself, there is no reason, whatsoever, to disbelieve the evidence of R.W.1 and
\nreject it. The Tribunal, after carefully scrutinising the evidence adduced on
\nboth sides and marshalling the same in a proper perspective, has come to a
\ncorrect conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the
\nbus and it was the appellant\/claimant who alone was at fault. The well
\nconsidered finding of the Tribunal regarding the question of negligence cannot
\nbe interfered with and the same deserves to get the stamp of approval of this
\nCourt. As the finding of the Tribunal regarding the question of negligence is
\nupheld, the rejection of the claim of the appellant\/claimant for compensation
\nagainst the first respondent Transport Corporation based on the theory of fault
\nshould also be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The learned counsel for the appellant\/claimant contended that even if
\nthe appellant\/claimant was at fault, as Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act
\nprovides for making a claim for compensation either under the provisions of the
\nMotor Vehicles Act or under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
\nthe claim against the second and third respondents should have been dealt with
\nand the compensation should have been awarded under the provisions of the
\nWorkmen’s Compensation Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel
\nrelied on the Judgment of the single Judge of Madras High Court in National
\nInsurance Company Ltd., v. V.Velammal<\/a> reported in [2000(3) CTC 291]. In the said
\nJudgment, it was held that the liability of the insurance company shall be
\ndetermined not only with reference to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act
\nbut also with reference to the contract of insurance if it extends to the
\nliability of the insured under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and that even
\nthough the claim made under the Motor Vehicles Act could not be sustained, it
\nwould be proper to assess the damages under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and
\nto award the same in favour of the claimant.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. In answer to the above said submissions made by the learned counsel
\nfor the appellant, the learned counsel for the third respondent cited a recent
\njudgment in Manoharan v. D.Kannan<\/a> reported in [2006(4) MLJ 1105] in which a
\nsingle Judge of the Madras High Court on facts has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The claimant having chosen the Forum under the Motor Vehicles Act for the
\npurpose of obtaining compensation cannot now fall back upon the provisions of
\nthe Workmen’s Compensation Act. When the cause of action arises under different
\nstatutes and the claimant\/appellant elected the forum under the Motor Vehicles
\nAct in preference to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he cannot be thereafter
\npermitted to raise contention which is available to him only under the Workmen’s
\nCompensation Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment  of the Honourable
\nSupreme Court pronounced in National Insurance Company v. Mastan<\/a> reported in
\n[2006(1) ACC 1 (SC)]. In the said case, the Honourable Supreme Court after
\nreferring to its earlier decisions in Nagubai Ammal and others v. B.Shama Rao
\nand others (AIR<\/a> 1956 SC 593), C.Beepathuma and others v. Velasari
\nShankaranarayana Kadambolithaya and others (AIR<\/a> 1965 SC 241),  P.R.Deshpande v.
\nMaruti Balaram Haibatti,<\/a> [1998(6) SCC 507] and Devasahayam (Dead) By Lrs. v.
\nP.Savithramma and others<\/a> [2005(7) SCC 653], has held that Section 167 of the
\nMotor Vehicles enshrines such a principle of election and that a claimant
\nelecting to proceed under any one of the two acts (Motor Vehicles Act and
\nWorkmen’s Compensation Act), excepting to the extent of exemption provided under
\nSection 143 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was applicable only to Chapter X of
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act, cannot fall back on the other statute to sustain his
\nclaim.  The extracts of the observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court
\nare given as under for the purpose of proper appreciation:\n<\/p>\n
\t“On the establishment of a Claims Tribunal in terms of Section 165 of the
\nMotor Vehicles Act, 1988, the victim of a motor accident has a right to apply
\nfor compensation in terms of Section 166 of that Act before that Tribunal. On
\nthe establishment of the Claims Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to
\nentertain a claim for compensation arising out of a motor accident, stands
\nousted by Section 175 of that Act. Until the establishment of the Tribunal, the
\nclaim had to be enforced  through the Civil Court as a claim in tort. The
\nexclusiveness of the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is taken
\naway by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act in one instance, when the claim
\ncould also fall under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. That section
\nprovides that death or bodily injury arising out of a motor accident which may
\nalso give rise to a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
\ncan be enforced through the authorities under that Act, the option in that
\nbehalf, being with the victim or his representative. But Section 167 makes it
\nclear that a claim could not be maintained under both the Acts. In other words,
\na claimant who becomes entitled to claim compensation both under the Motor
\nVehicles Act, 1988 and under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, because of a motor
\nvehicle accident has the choice of proceeding under either of the Acts before
\nthe concerned Forum. By confining the claim to the authority or the Tribunal
\nunder either of the Acts, the Legislature has incorporated the concept of
\nelection of remedies, insofar as the claimant is concerned. In other words, he
\nhas to elect whether to make his claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or
\nunder the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The emphasis in the section that a
\nclaim cannot be made under both the enactments, is a further reiteration of the
\ndoctrine of election incorporated in the scheme for claiming compensation. The
\nprinciple “where, either of two alternative Tribunals are open to a litigant,
\neach having jurisdiction over the matters in dispute, and he resorts for his
\nremedy to one of such Tribunals in preference to the other, he is precluded, as
\nagainst his opponent, from any subsequent recourse to the latter”.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. In view of the above said Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court
\nlaying down the proposition that  a claimant who exercises his option of
\nselection of forum under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provision
\nalone gives an exemption from the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims
\nTribunal to make a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in respect of an
\naccident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, by electing to make a claim
\nbefore the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation under the provisions of the
\nWorkmen’s Compensation Act or by making a claim under Chapter XI of the Motor
\nVehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, then, he cannot fall
\nback on the other statute and claim compensation its provisions, in case his
\nclaim under the provisions of statute selected by him was bound to fail. The
\nview expressed by the single Judge of the Madras High Court in National
\nInsurance Company Ltd., v. V.Velammal<\/a> is no longer correct proposition of law
\nand hence the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant in this
\nregard has got to be rejected as untenable.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. In the case on hand, no doubt the claimant had an option of making a
\nclaim either under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act or under the
\nprovisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. By electing to make the claim under the
\nprovisions of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
\nthe appellant\/claimant has lost his right to make a claim under the provisions
\nof Workmen’s Compensation Act. Therefore, there is no error or infirmity
\ncommitted by the Tribunal in holding that the appellant\/claimant was not
\nentitled to get any compensation from the respondents 2 and 3 under the
\nprovisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. However, this Court is able to find some force and substance in the
\ncontention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has
\ncommitted an error in not even recognising the right of the appellant\/claimant
\nto get compensation under the no fault liability clause found in Section 140 of
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act and that to that extent, the Judgment and decree of the
\nTribunal is erroneous and thus, the same should be set aside and modified. In a
\ncatena of decisions, it has been held that the question of negligence is
\nirrelevant in a claim under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act based on
\nstatutory no fault liability. While dealing with the no fault liability clause
\nfound in Section 92-A of 1939 Act, the Honourable Supreme Court in Nandakumar.K.
\nv. Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation<\/a> reported in [1996(1) CTC 505] holding
\nthat an absolute liability was cost upon the owner of the vehicle to pay
\ncompensation, has made the following observation:\n<\/p>\n
\t“By reason of sub-section (1) of Section 92-A an absolute liability is
\ncost upon the owner of a vehicle to pay compensation in respect of death or
\npermanent disablement resulting from an accident arising out of its use. By
\nreason of sub-section (3), the claimant is not required to plead or establish
\nthat the death or disablement was due to a wrongful act or neglect or default of
\nthe owner of any other person. Sub-section(4) is in two parts. The first part
\nstates that a claim for compensation under the Section is not defeated by reason
\nof any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person who had died or suffered
\npermanent disablement. The second part states that the quantum of compensation
\nis not to be diminished even if the person who had died of suffered permanent
\ndisablement bore some responsibility for his death or disablement.”\n<\/p>\n
\t19. In G.Kotteeswaran v. P.Venkatesan and others<\/a> reported in [2004(1)
\nTNMAC 136], a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, following the Judgment of
\nthe Nandakumar’s case expressed a similar view that irrespective of the fact
\nthat the accident was the result of the negligence on the part of the deceased
\nor the injured, the claim of the injured or the legal representatives of the
\ndeceased for compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act against
\nthe owner of the vehicle or vehicles involved in the accident should be
\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents have also conceded
\nthat the appellant\/claimant should have been awarded compensation based on the
\nno fault liability clause found in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is
\nnot in dispute that status of the claimant as an employee under the respondent
\nis immaterial for sustaining a claim under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles
\nAct; that even an employee of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident
\nwill be entitled to claim compensation under the no fault liability clause as
\nper Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, even though he might have been guilty
\nof negligence leading to the accident in question or guilty of contributory
\nnegligence. Therefore, the only question to be  decided in respect of a claim
\nunder Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is:- “whether the accident in
\nquestion arose out of the use of the motor vehicle or the motor vehicles
\nconcerned?”. If the answer to the said question is in the affirmative, then the
\nowner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles involved in the accident shall be
\njointly and severally liable to pay compensation in respect of the death or
\npermanent disability. There is the evidence of P.W.2, a qualified medical
\npractitioner and Ex.X.1 – the disability certificate issued by him, in which he
\nhas certified the appellant\/claimant to have suffered a permanent disability to
\nthe tune of 10%. In this case, it is not in dispute that the bus belonging to
\nthe first respondent and the lorry belonging to the second respondent were the
\nvehicles involved in the accident. It is also not in dispute that the accident
\nin question arose out of the use of the above said motor vehicles. Therefore,
\nthe first and second respondents, respectively the owners of the vehicles
\ninvolved in the accident are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to
\nthe extent provided under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents drew the attention
\nof this Court that the accident took place prior to the amendment introduced in
\n1994 and as per the unamended provision of Section 140 which was applicable as
\non the date of accident, a sum of Rs.12,000\/- alone is payable for permanent
\ndisability.  The amendment came into force on 14.11.1994. The accident took
\nplace on 04.11.1994. Therefore, only a sum of Rs.12,000\/- as per the unamended
\nSection 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall be payable to the appellant\/claimant
\nas compensation under the no fault liability clause.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. The first and second respondents being the owners of the vehicles
\ninvolved in the accident shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the above
\nsaid amount. The third respondent admittedly, being the insurer of the lorry
\ninvolved in the accident, shall be liable to shoulder the liability of the
\nsecond respondent and pay the compensation to the appellant\/claimant on behalf
\nof the second respondent by virtue of the contract of insurance. In line with
\nthe above said observations, this Court hereby holds that the Judgment and
\ndecree of the Tribunal, to the extent indicated above, is liable to be
\ninterfered with. The appellant\/claimant shall be entitled to an award for a sum
\nof Rs.12,000\/- against the respondents 1 to 3 who shall jointly and severally
\npay the above said amount together with interest from the date of claim. Taking
\ninto account the past and present rate of interest to bank deposits and
\nadvances, paid\/collected by banks, awarding an interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
\nshall be reasonable. In all other respects,  the claim of the appellant\/claimant
\nshall stand dismissed. The appellant\/claimant shall be entitled to proportionate
\ncost through out. The respondents shall bear their own costs in both the Courts.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. In the result,  this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and
\nthe award of the Tribunal dismissing M.C.O.P. in its entirety is hereby set
\naside and an award in favour of the appellant\/claimant is passed against the
\nrespondents 1 to 3 directing them to jointly and severally pay a sum of
\nRs.12,000\/- together with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the said
\namount from the date of claim petition till realisation. The respondents shall
\npay proportionate cost to the appellant\/claimant in both the Courts.\n<\/p>\n
SML<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The  Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
\n(Additional Subordinate Judge),
\nTenkasi.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Rajan Kuttil Nayar Alias Rajan … vs Tamil Nadu State Transport … on 22 June, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22\/06\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A.(MD).No.1556 of 2000 Rajan Kuttil Nayar alias Rajan Pillai .. Appellant Vs. 1.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Madurai Division 2) […]<\/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-166973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajan Kuttil Nayar Alias Rajan ... vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 22 June, 2007 - 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\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajan Kuttil Nayar Alias Rajan ... vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 22 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-14T17:29:19+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajan Kuttil Nayar Alias Rajan … vs Tamil Nadu State Transport … on 22 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-14T17:29:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4863,\"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\\\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007\",\"name\":\"Rajan Kuttil Nayar Alias Rajan ... vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 22 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-14T17:29:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajan Kuttil Nayar Alias Rajan … vs Tamil Nadu State Transport … on 22 June, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajan Kuttil Nayar Alias Rajan ... vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 22 June, 2007 - 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\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajan Kuttil Nayar Alias Rajan ... vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 22 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-14T17:29:19+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajan Kuttil Nayar Alias Rajan … vs Tamil Nadu State Transport … on 22 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-14T17:29:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007"},"wordCount":4863,"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\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007","name":"Rajan Kuttil Nayar Alias Rajan ... vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 22 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-14T17:29:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-kuttil-nayar-alias-rajan-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-22-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajan Kuttil Nayar Alias Rajan … vs Tamil Nadu State Transport … on 22 June, 2007"}]},{"@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\/166973","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=166973"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166973\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}