{"id":171952,"date":"2010-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-02-21T14:54:27","modified_gmt":"2018-02-21T09:24:27","slug":"mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mrs.Annakili vs The Managing Director on 29 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Mrs.Annakili vs The Managing Director on 29 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated: 29\/03\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.1362 of 2001\n\nMrs.Annakili\t\t\t... Appellant \/ Claimant\n\nVs.\n\nThe Managing Director,\nKattabomman Transport Corporation,\nTirunelveli-3.\t\t\t... Respondent\/Respondent\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the\norder made in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 1999, dated 31.10.2000, on the file of the Motor\nAccident Claims Tribunal, Ambasamudram.\n\t\n!For Appellant  ... Mr.A.Arumugam\n^For Respondent ... Mr.M.Prakash\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t* * * * *\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against
\nthe order made in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 1999, dated 31.10.2000, on the file of the
\nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambasamudram.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The appellant is the claimant.  On 25.01.1998, the bus bearing
\nRegistration No.TN-72-N-0435 belonging to the respondent Corporation was
\nproceeding from North to South on a bridge at Kallidaikurichi. The driver drove
\nthe bus in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and hit
\nthe appellant herein and also the wall of the bridge.  The appellant sustained
\nmultiple injuries.  She was immediately taken to the Government Hospital at
\nAmbasamudram and then she was referred to the Government Medical College
\nHospital at Tirunelveli.  She was treated as in patient upto 11.02.1998. That
\nis, she was an in patient from 25.01.1998 to 11.02.1998.  Thereafter, she was
\ntreated as out patient by the Tirunelveli Government Medical College Hospital
\nupto March 2000.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The claimant filed M.C.O.P.No.36 of 1999 claiming a sum of
\nRs.1,00,000\/- as compensation.  Before the Tribunal two witnesses were examined
\non her side and the documents Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked.  On the side of the
\nrespondent, no witness was examined and no document was marked.  The Tribunal
\npassed an award dated 31.10.2000 granting a sum of Rs.17,300\/- as compensation
\nwith 12% interest  and costs.  The present appeal is seeking enhancement of
\ncompensation.  In the appeal she claims Rs.82,700\/- as further compensation
\nbesides the award of the Tribunal of Rs.17,300\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal
\nrejected the evidence of the doctor and failed to grant any compensation towards
\ndisability and the loss of earning suffered by the claimant.  It is submitted
\nthat when the doctor categorically deposed before the Tribunal that the claimant
\nsuffered 55% of permanent partial disability, the Tribunal should have accepted
\nthe same, particularly, when there is no contra evidence by the respondent.  It
\nis further submitted that the Tribunal erroneously proceeded as if the claimant
\nwas given only Paracetamol and Ibuprofen tablets.  Such a finding is contrary to
\nthe treatment records which is marked as Ex.P.6.  The learned Counsel has
\nstrenuously argued that the claimant took the treatment for a very long time as
\noutpatient in the Government Hospital at Tirunelveli and those details are found
\nin Ex.A.6.  The learned Counsel takes serious objection to the manner in the
\napproach of the Tribunal relating to the doctor’s evidence.  He has taken me
\nthrough the evidence of the doctor and also Ex.A.7, the disability certificate
\nissued by the Doctor.  The reason given by the Tribunal for rejecting the
\ndoctor’s evidence is not sustainable.  The learned Counsel has relied on the
\njudgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. C.K.Ramesh and
\n2 others reported in  2009(2) TN MAC 163, and also another decision of this
\nCourt in Shanmugham Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trasnport
\nCorporation  reported in 2006(5) CTC 269.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that
\nthere is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal.  It is submitted that the
\ndoctor did not treat the claimant in the hospital, where she took treatment.  It
\nis also submitted that she is not an Orthopaedic surgeon and her evidence was
\ncorrectly rejected by the Tribunal.  It is further submitted that since the
\ndoctor did not give the details of the examinations conducted by her for giving
\nthe disability certificate, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in rejecting
\nthe evidence of the doctor.  The learned Counsel relies on a decision of the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court in M.Jayanna Vs. K.Radha Krishna Reddy and another
\nreported in 2005 ACJ 344, in support of his submissions.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The learned Counsel for the respondent further submits that in any
\nevent, if the disability certificate is accepted, the application of multiplier
\nmethod is not warranted.   It is submitted that in the case of non fatal cases,
\nas per the decision of this Court in  United India Insurance Company Limited Vs.
\nVeluchamy and Another reported in 2005(1) TN MAC 87(DB), compensation cannot be
\narrived at by applying multiplier method.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the
\nrecords.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The Tribunal awarded Rs.17,300\/- under the following heads:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)  for pain and sufferings\t\tRs.15,000\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) for loss of wages during
\n\t\tthe treatment period\t\tRs. 1,200\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii)for attendant’s charges\t\tRs.   600\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) for extra nourishment\t\tRs.   500\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t———\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tTotal\t\tRs.17,300\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t———\n<\/p>\n
\t10. After the accident, the claimant was immediately taken to the
\nGovernment Hospital, Ambasamudram.  However, the concerned authorities referred
\nher immediately to the Government Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli.  She
\nwas immediately taken to Tirunelveli and was admitted as inpatient.  She was
\ninpatient from 25.01.1998 to 11.02.1998. That is, she was treated as in patient
\nfor 18 days. Ex.A.4 is the wound certificate.  Initially, Ambasamudram hospital
\nhas recorded that they could not give any opinion on the date when the claimant
\nwas admitted, immediately after the accident. After she was discharged as
\ninpatient in the Tirunelveli Government Medical College Hospital, the
\nAmbasamudram hospital gave the wound certificate stating that the claimant
\nreceived grievous injuries.  It is stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Grievous injury (1)
\nAfter treatment given by TVMCH
\ntendon Achilles – cut”\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Ex.P.6 is the details of the treatment given to the claimant as
\noutpatient upto 06.03.2000.  I have perused those records.  At the out set, I am
\nnot in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant was given
\nparacetamol and  Ibuprofen only. That is according to the Tribunal, she was
\ngiven pain killer and tablets for fever.  According to Ex.P.6, such a finding of
\nthe Tribunal is not warranted.  She was given different medicines and she was
\ngiven physiotherapy continuously.  In fact, it is recorded on 28.03.1998 that
\nlimping gait is getting minimised.  That is, the claimant limped due to the
\ninjury.  On 02.02.1999, it is recorded as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“partial injury right heal. Advised to wear healed chapel”\n<\/p>\n
Thus the entire approach of the Tribunal is perverse, contrary to the evidence
\non record.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The Tribunal states that in Ex.P.4 or in Ex.P.6, nowhere stated that
\nthe petitioner suffered permanent partial disability.  The Tribunal is not
\ncorrect in stating that nothing is stated about the permanent partial disability
\nin Exs.P.4 and P.6., when   Ex.P.4 is the wound certificate and Ex.P.6 is the
\ndetails of the treatment given to the petitioner from 25.01.1998 to 06.03.2000.
\nOne could not see in the wound certificate or in the treatment card, whether the
\ninjured suffered permanent partial disability and the same has to be gathered
\nfrom the disability certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal is not correct in
\nstating as follows:\n<\/p>\n
”   “”Mdhy; Bkw;go muR kUj;Jtkidapy; tHA;fg;gl;l rpfpr;irapd; mog;gilapy;
\nkDjhuUf;F epue;jukhd Cdk; nUe;jjhf vs;sst[k; brhy;yg;gltpy;iy.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The Tribunal rejected the evidence of P.W.2, the doctor, who gave the
\nevidence that the claimant suffered 55% of permanent partial disability.  The
\nreason for rejection was that the doctor did not state on what date and at what
\ntime, the claimant was examined to give Ex.P.7, the disability certificate. The
\nother reason was that nothing in the evidence of the doctor nor in the Ex.P.7
\ncertificate, what were the tests conducted in the appellant claimant were given.
\nThe following is the reason given by the Tribunal for rejecting the evidence of
\nthe doctor.\n<\/p>\n
” mtUf;F Vw;gl;Ls;s gFjp epue;ju Cdj;jpd; tpGf;fhL 55% vdt[k;, mjw;fhf
\ntHA;fg;gl;l rhd;wpjH; k.rh.M.7 vd;Wk; rhl;rpak; mspj;jpUg;gJ bjhpa tUfpd;wd.
\nne;epiyapy; Bkw;goahhpd; rhl;rpak; kw;Wk; rhd;whtzj;jpd; mog;gilapy; ve;j
\nBjjpapy; vj;jid kzpf;F vA;F itj;J k.rh.1-I ghpBrhjid bra;jhh; vd;gJ bjhpa
\ntutpy;iy. mBjBghd;W ve;j ve;j Brhjidfspd; mog;gilapy; kDjhuh; Md k.rh.1-f;F
\nepue;ju Cdk; 55% nUe;jjhf Kot[f;F te;jhh; vd;gJ bghUl;L kUj;Jt hPjpahf k.rh.2-
\nd;rhl;rpaj;jpYk; rhd;whtzj;jpYk; bjspt[g;gLj;jg; gltpy;iy vd;W brhd;dhy;
\nkpifay;y”\n<\/p>\n
\t14. But this reasoning of the Tribunal is not based on  record.  Ex.P.7,
\nthe disability certificate, states that the same was given after personal and
\nclinical examination of the claimant.  It is stated in Ex.P.7 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“I personally and clinically examined Tmt.Annakili, W\/o Sekar, aged 47 years,
\nresiding at 29-A, Karthigal Madam Street, Kallidaikurichi.  Her identification
\nmarks are 1.ABM at front of neck over the medial end of collar bone 2. A raised
\nBM at the back of the neck.  I perused her wound certificate.”
\nTherefore, it is clear that the certificate was given after personal and
\nclinical examinations and after going through the wound certificate.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. Further, P.W.2, the doctor gave categorical evidence as follows:
\n“ehd; Kf;Tlypy; kUj;Jtuhf gzpg[hpfpBwd;. fhak; Vw;gl;l md;dfpsp vd;gtiu
\nBeuoahft[k;, mtUila fha rhd;wpjiH ghh;itapl;Lk; ehd; bfhLj;j kUj;Jt rhd;wpjH;.
\nmtUf;F tyJ fhypy; jir mWgl;Ls;sJ. me;j jirapd; nilbtsp fhzg;gLfpwJ. mtUila
\neilapy; Bjhw;wk; khWgLfpwJ. mtuhy; btF Beuk; cjtp ny;yhky; epw;fBth elf;fBth
\nnaytpy;iy.  fhiy klf;fp cl;fhut[k; ne;jpa fHpg;giwapy; cl;fhut[k; rpukk;
\nVw;gl;Ls;sJ. tyJ fZf;fhy; Kl;od; mirt[fs; ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. mtUf;F BkYk; mWit
\nrpfpr;ir Bjitg;gLfpwJ. mtUf;F Vw;gl;Ls;s gFjp epue;ju Cdj;jpd; tpGf;fhL 55%
\nepue;ju Cd rhd;wpjH; kDjhuh; jug;g[ rhd;wpjH; 7.”\n<\/p>\n
\t16. In course of cross examination by the respondent, nothing was put to
\nthe witness about the tests that were conducted by the doctor who came into
\nconclusion about the disability.  The cross examination of the doctor is very
\nshort and the same is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“ehd; Beuoahf ghpBrhjpj;Jk; ghpBrhjid bra;Bjd;.  kDjhuUf;F Vw;gl;Ls;s fhak;
\nrpWfhaA;fs; vd;why; rhpay;y. bfhLj;Js;s Cd tpGf;fhL mjpfk; vd;why; rhpay;y.”\n<\/p>\n
\t17. In view of Ex.P.7 read with the evidence of the doctor, the reasoning
\nof the Tribunal for rejecting the Ex.A.7 disability certificate is not
\njustified.  when the doctor categorically stated that certificate was given
\nafter subjecting the claimant for personal and clinical examination and also
\nafter seeing the wound certificate, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting
\nthe evidence of the doctor, an expert, in the above said manner.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. In this regard, the judgment of this Court in  New India Assurance
\nCompany Limited Vs. C.K.Ramesh and 2 others reported in  2009(2) TN MAC 163
\nrelied
\nby the claimant is directly on the point.  Paragraph 7(a) of the said judgment
\nis extracted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
“7(a). Though the learned Counsel for the appellant would assail the evidence of
\nP.W.2 on the contention that the doctor is not at all qualified in Orthopaedics
\nnor Otorhinolaryngology, on the side of the appellant, they have not let in any
\noral evidence or medical evidence to defeat the oral evidence given by P.W.2.
\nIt is to be seen that P.W.2 is also working in K.G.Hospital where the
\nrespondent\/claimant was taking treatment as inpatient for his injuries.  In the
\nconsidered vie of this Court, there is no impediment to accept the oral evidence
\nof P.W.2 since it has been supported by other medical evidence as narrated
\nbefore.  In the re-examination of P.W.2, he has stated that he also had
\nconsultation with other Doctor and given his opinion in the disability
\ncertificate.”\n<\/p>\n
\t19. The other judgment in Shanmugham Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu
\nState Trasnport Corporation  reported in 2006(5) CTC 269, this Court reversed
\nthe finding of the Tribunal refusing to take into account the medical bills
\nwithout being supported by doctor’s evidence.  This Court held that the
\nprocedure contemplated is a summary procedure while deciding the accident
\nclaims.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. The learned Counsel for the respondent relies on the decision of the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court in M.Jayanna Vs. K.Radha Krishna Reddy and another
\nreported in 2005 ACJ 344. That case arose in a peculiar circumstances wherein it
\nis noted that a large scale fraud is committed in accident claims.  In this
\ncase, the respondent did not dispute the accident.  Hence, that case is not
\napplicable to the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the order of the
\nTribunal needs interference.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that it is not a fatal
\ncase and multiplier method cannot be applied to determine the compensation in
\nnon fatal cases.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel
\nfor the respondent.  The Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act makes it very
\nclear that the multiplier method can be applied for non fatal cases. In fact,
\nthe same issue is decided in  New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. C.K.Ramesh
\nand 2 others reported in  2009(2) TN MAC 163(supra).  This Court, after
\nreferring to various decisions of the Honourable Apex Court, held that the
\nmultiplier method can be applied in the case of non fatal cases. I am not in
\nagreement with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent
\nthat the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited
\nVs. Veluchamy and Another reported in 2005(1) TN MAC 87(DB) held that multiplier
\nmethod should not be applied in permanent partial disability cases.  On the
\nother hand, the said judgment applied the multiplier method in the case of
\npermanent total disablement. No where the Division Bench stated that the
\nmultiplier method should not be applied in partial permanent disability cases.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. Though the Tribunal took Rs.1,200\/- as monthly salary for the
\nclaimant, I would like to take Rs.15,000\/- as annual earnings of the claimant as
\nthe monthly earnings was not established, based on the  Second Schedule of the
\nMotor Vehicles Act.  The petitioner is aged about 45 years.  The multiplier for
\nthe age group 45 to 50 years is “13”.  Then the claimant is entitled to
\ncompensation as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act at Rs.15,000\/-
\nX 13 x 55\/100=1,07,250\/-.  Since the very purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act is
\nto provide just compensation to the third parties, the victims of the road
\naccidents, there is no bar to award the compensation over and above the claim
\nmade by the claimant.  In fact the Honourable Apex Court in Nagappa’s case
\nreported in I(2004) ACC 524(SC) and in Rama Devi’s case reported in 2008(1)
\nTNMAC 234(SC) held in categorical terms that the victims are entitled to just
\nand reasonable compensation as envisaged under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles
\nAct and there is no bar to award more than the claim made by the claimants.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. In these circumstances, the respondent is directed to deposit the
\nenhanced amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
\nof this order. That is, the respondent is directed to deposit Rs.1,07,250\/-.
\nHowever, I like to award only 9% interest from the date of application for the
\nenhanced amount. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the  amount from the
\nTribunal by paying the deficit Court fee.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in the above
\nterms. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
ssl<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
\nAmbasamudram.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Mrs.Annakili vs The Managing Director on 29 March, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 29\/03\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN C.M.A.(MD)No.1362 of 2001 Mrs.Annakili … Appellant \/ Claimant Vs. The Managing Director, Kattabomman Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli-3. … Respondent\/Respondent Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, […]<\/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-171952","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMrs.Annakili vs The Managing Director on 29 March, 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\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs.Annakili vs The Managing Director on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-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=\"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-21T09:24:27+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs.Annakili vs The Managing Director on 29 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-21T09:24:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2571,\"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\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Mrs.Annakili vs The Managing Director on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-21T09:24:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs.Annakili vs The Managing Director on 29 March, 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":"Mrs.Annakili vs The Managing Director on 29 March, 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\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs.Annakili vs The Managing Director on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-21T09:24:27+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs.Annakili vs The Managing Director on 29 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-21T09:24:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010"},"wordCount":2571,"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\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010","name":"Mrs.Annakili vs The Managing Director on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-21T09:24:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-annakili-vs-the-managing-director-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs.Annakili vs The Managing Director on 29 March, 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\/171952","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=171952"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171952\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171952"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171952"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171952"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}