{"id":174374,"date":"2010-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010"},"modified":"2014-03-28T05:59:07","modified_gmt":"2014-03-28T00:29:07","slug":"k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.Vijayakumar vs C.Nagendran on 20 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K.Vijayakumar vs C.Nagendran on 20 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated: 20\/04\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.1148 of 2007\n\nK.Vijayakumar\t                  ... Appellant \/ Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1. C.Nagendran\n2. M\/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited,\n   represented by its Branch Manager,\n   127\/8, Madurai Road,\n   Virudhunagar-626 001.          ... Respondents \/Respondents\n\n\n\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the\njudgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2003 dated 04.01.2007, on the file\nof the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai.\n\t\n!For Appellant    ... Mr.A.Jayaramachandran\n^For Respondents  ... K.Bhaskaran\n\t\t      for R.2\nFor R.1\t          ... No Appearance\n\n\t* * * * *\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against
\nthe judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2003 dated 04.01.2007, on the
\nfile of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\nSivagangai.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.  The appellant was a claimant. on 10.11.2003,  he rode a two wheeler,
\nYamaka Crux from R.S.Mangalam to Sivagangai.  At that time, an auto owed by the
\nfirst respondent, insured with the second respondent came in the opposite
\ndirection and hit the appellant and caused the accident.  He received grievous
\ninjuries on the right leg and there was a fracture of right thigh bone.
\nAccording to the appellant, the auto driver drove the vehicle rashly and
\nnegligently and caused the accident.  He was immediately taken to Government
\nHospital, Sivagangai and admitted as inpatient.  On the next day, i.e. on
\n11.11.2003, he was admitted in Jawahar Hospital, Madurai.   A surgery was
\nperformed and a steel plate was fixed.  He was there as inpatient for 19 days.
\nHe was discharged on 29.11.2003.  He filed M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2004 claiming
\nRs.3,00,000\/- as compensation.  According to him, he suffered 35% permanent
\npartial disability and he earned Rs.10,000\/- per month.  The Tribunal passed an
\naward dated 04.01.2007 fixing the responsibility for the accident on the
\nclaimant at 25% and  granting Rs.67,500\/- as compensation under the following
\nheads:<\/p>\n
\n\n\t(i)   for disability compensation\tRs.20,000\n\t(ii)  for extra nutrition and\n\t\tfor transport charges\t\tRs. 5,000\n\t(iii) for grievous injuries\t\tRs.10,000\n\t(iv)  for pain and sufferings\t        Rs. 5,000\n\t(v)   for medical bills\t\t        Rs.50,000\n\t\t\t\t\t\t---------\n\t\t\t\tTotal\t\tRs.90,000\n\t\t\t\t\t\t---------\n\tThis appeal is against the said award.\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t3. Heard Mr.A.Jayaramachandran, learned Counsel for the appellant and
\nMr.K.Bhaskaran, learned Counsel for the second respondent and perused the
\nrecords.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The learned Counsel for the appellant makes the following submissions:\n<\/p>\n
(i) The Tribunal erroneously held that the negligence of the appellant to the
\naccident was 25%, while the auto driver contributed to 75%.  According to the
\nappellant, the entire responsibility should have been fixed on the auto driver.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The Tribunal was not correct in taking 20% as permanent partial disability,
\nwhen the doctor certified that the appellant suffered 35% permanent partial
\ndisability and also when the doctor gave  evidence in support of the
\ncertificate.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) The Tribunal erred in not applying the multiplier method under the Second
\nSchedule of the Motor Vehicles Act in awarding compensation. On the other hand,
\nthe Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000\/- for 20% permanent partial disability.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) The Tribunal was not justified in granting Rs.50,000\/- towards medical
\nexpenses, when he produced  medical bills for Rs.73,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
(v) The Tribunal awarded on lower side towards pain and sufferings i.e.
\nRs.5,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
(vi) The Tribunal failed to award any amount towards future medical expenses
\nwhen the doctor deposed that Rs.25,000\/- would be required for future medical
\nexpenses by removal of steel plates by surgery.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the second respondent
\nsubmits that there is no infirmity in the award and he has made his submissions
\ncountering the points raised by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Firstly, it has to be seen whether the Tribunal was correct in holding
\nthat the appellant contributed 25% towards the accident.  The only reason given
\nby the Tribunal in paragraph 7 of the awards is that the appellant did not
\nproduce the driving licence and that therefore 25% liability should be fastened
\non him.  The following passage from paragraph 7 of the award of the Tribunal is
\nextracted herein in this regard:\n<\/p>\n
“..rk;gt tpgj;Jf; fhyj;jpy; kDjhuUf;F Kiwahd Xl;Ldh; chpkk; ny;iy vd 2Mk;
\nvjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; vLj;Jiuf;fg;gl;l BghjpYk; kDjhuUf;F tpgj;Jf; fhyj;jpy;
\nKiwahd Xl;Ldh; chpkk; nUe;jJ vd;gij epUgpf;f kDjhuh; jug;gpy; vt;tpjkhd
\nKaw;rpfSk; Bkw;bfhs;sg;gltpy;iy. kDjhuhpd; xl;Ldh; chpkk; nk;kd;wj;jpd; Kd;g[
\njhf;fy; bra;ag;gltpy;iy. vdBt rk;gt tpj;jpw;F kDjhuUk;  bghWg;ghdth; vd 2Mk;
\nvjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; vLj;Jiuf;fg;gl;l thjk; Vw;g[ilaJ vd nk;kd;wk; fUJfpwJ.”\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The learned Counsel for the appellant took me through the evidence and
\nsubmits that nowhere the second respondent suggested to the appellant during
\ncross examination about the alleged non possession of driving licence by the
\nappellant.  It is also submitted that even R.W.2, the Officer from the second
\nrespondent Insurance Company did not speak about the alleged non possession of
\nthe driving licence by the appellant.  When the second respondent examined an
\nemployee from the Regional Transport Office as R.W.1., it was their endeavour to
\nestablish about the permit violation by the auto driver in driving the auto
\nbeyond the permit limits.  There was nothing in the evidence of R.W.1 regarding
\nthe non possession of driving licence by the appellant.  More importantly,
\nEx.P.5 is the judgment of the criminal Court, wherein the auto driver pleaded
\nguilty and paid fine.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal
\ncommitted error in fastening 25% liability on the appellant.  Absolutely, there
\nis no material to fasten 25% liability on the appellant.  Hence, I fix the
\nentire liability on the auto driver.  Accordingly, the second respondent
\nInsurance Company is liable to pay the entire compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Secondly, it has to be seen, whether the Tribunal was correct in
\nholding that the appellant suffered 20% permanent partial disability, when the
\ndoctor examined as P.W.3 deposed that the appellant suffered 35% permanent
\npartial disability.  The Tribunal did not give any valid reason for fixing 20%
\npermanent partial disability.  The only reason given by the Tribunal is found in
\nparagraph 10 of the award.  Paragraph 10 of the award is extracted herein:
\n“10. kDjhuUf;F Muk;g rpfpr;ir rptfA;if muR kUj;Jtkidapy; tHA;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. Mdhy;
\nmJ tiff;F vt;tpjkhd Mjut[fSk; nk;kd;wj;jpd; Kd;g[ jhf;fy; bra;ag;gltpy;iy. Bky;
\nrpfpr;ir kJiu $tcwh; kUj;Jtkidapy; tHA;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s
\nfhar;rhd;W k.rh.M.2 kJiu $tcwh; kUj;Jtkidapy; tHA;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. Bkw;go Mjutpy;
\nnUe;J kDjhuhpd; tyJ fhy; bjhilapy; gpa{kh; vd;w vYk;g[ Kwpt[ Vw;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJ
\nbjhpatUfpwJ. BkYk; Bkw;go kUj;Jtkidapd; rpfpr;ir Bfhg;g[ k.rh.M.8 Mft[k;,
\nrpfpr;ir fhyj;jpy; vLf;fg;gl;l Ez;fjph;glk; k.rh.M.9 thpir Mft[k; FwpaPL
\nbra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. Bkw;go Mjut[fspd; mog;gilapy; ghh;f;Fk;BghJ kDjhuhpd; tyJ fhy;
\nbjhilapy; gpa{kh; vd;w vYk;gpy; Kwpt[ Vw;gl;L cs;sJ vd;gJk; mJ tiff;F mWit
\nrpfpr;ir bra;ag;gl;L, fk;gp bghUj;jg;gl;L rpfpr;ir tHA;fg;gl;Ls;sd vd;gJk; bjhpa
\ntUfpwJ. k.rh.3 mtuJ rhl;rpaj;jpy;  rpfpr;irf;Fg; gpd;g[ kDjhuUf;F Vw;gl;Ls;s
\nvYk;g[ Kwpt[ rhpahf nize;Js;s BghjpYk; cs;Bs fk;gp bghUj;jg;gl;oUg;gjhfj; bjhpa
\nte;Js;sjhft[k; mtuhy; Kd;Bghy; Btiy bra;a nayhJ vdt[k; rk;kzk; Bghl;L mkUtjpYk;,
\nkhog;go VWtjpYk; rpukk; cs;sJ vdt[k; kDjhuUf;Fg; bghUj;jg;gl;l fk;gpia mfw;w
\nkw;Wk; xU mWit rpfpr;ir bra;ag;glBtz;Lk; vd;Wk; mJ tif;F U.25,000\/- tiuapYk;
\nbrythFk; vd;Wk; Twpa[s;shh;. Bkw;Twg;gl;litfspd; mog;gilapy; kDjhuUf;F 35% gFjp
\nepue;ju Cdk; Vw;gl;Ls;sjhff; fUj;J tHA;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJ kpifg;gLj;jg; gl;Ls;s
\njhfBt nk;kd;wk; fUJfpwJ. kDjhuUf;F tyJ fhy; bjhilg; gFjpapy; gpa{kh; vd;w vYk;g[
\nKwpt[ Vw;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gjd; mog;gilapYk;, kJiu $tcwh; kUj;Jtkidapy; mWit rpfpr;ir
\nbra;ag;gl;L fk;gp bghUj;jg;gl;L rpfpr;ir tHA;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gjd; mog;gilapYk;
\nmtUf;F 20% gFjp epue;ju Cdk; Vw;gl;ls;sjhf Kot[  fz;L, mjd; mog;gilapy;
\nnHg;gPl;Lj; bjhif fzf;fPL bra;jy; ePjpapd; ghw;gl;lJ vdt[k; jPh;khdpf;fpBwd;.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10. In fact, the Tribunal stated that as per the aforesaid reasons, the
\nTribunal reduced the percentage of disability from 35% to 20%.  But the entire
\nparagraph as well as paragraph 9 support the<\/p>\n
case of the appellant.  Those paragraphs deal with the deposition of the doctor
\nabout the sufferings of the appellant.  Admittedly, the appellant was treated as
\ninpatient in Jawahar Hospital, Madurai for 19 days and a surgery was also
\nperformed and steel plates were inserted.  The doctor deposed that there is a
\ndifficulty for the appellant to climb stairs and to sit on the floor.  The
\ndoctor deposed that he could not run and he could not walk fast.  He also
\ndeposed that femur bone was fractured.  There is no contra evidence let in by
\nthe second respondent Insurance Company against the evidence of the doctor and
\nthe disability certificate marked as Ex.P.10.  Ex.P.2 is the wound certificate
\nand Ex.P.6 is the treatment record.  P.W.2, an employee from the Jawahar
\nHospital, Madurai was examined and he produced the entire treatment records.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the Tribunal was not
\ncorrect in reducing the disability from 35% to 20%, without giving any reason<\/p>\n
therefor.  Hence, I hold that the appellant suffered 35% permanent partial
\ndisability.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Thirdly, the appellant has grievance over fixing Rs.20,000\/- towards
\ndisability compensation instead of applying multiplier method in granting
\ncompensation.  Though initially the learned Counsel for the second respondent
\nopposes strenuously for applying multiplier method, the learned Counsel did not
\nseriously dispute for applying the multiplier method if Rs.2,000\/- is taken as
\nmonthly earnings of the appellant.  In my view, Clause 5 of the Second Schedule
\nof the Motor Vehicles Act makes it very clear that multiplier method has to be
\napplied in non fatal cases.  The Honourable Apex Court also held in the
\nfollowing decisions\n<\/p>\n
(i) Reshma kumar and Others Vs. Madam Mohan and Another reported in 2009(2)
\nTNMAC 36 (SC)\n<\/p>\n
(ii)Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh and Others reported in 2008(1) TNMAC 43(SC)<\/p>\n
(iii)G.Lakshmanan Vs. K.Kannan and Others reported in 2007(1) MLJ 433
\nthat the multiplier could be applied in cases where the injured suffered
\npermanent partial disability.  Hence, I hold that the Tribunal committed error
\nin awarding lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000\/- towards disability, without
\napplying multiplier method.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Though the appellant has not produced any evidence regarding his
\nmonthly earnings, when he pleaded that he earned Rs.10,000\/- per month.  In
\nthese circumstances, the learned Counsel for the appellant has no objection for
\ntaking Rs.2,000\/- as monthly earnings of the appellant as suggested by the
\nlearned Counsel for the second respondent.  Admittedly, the age of the appellant
\nat the time of the accident was 37 years.  The relevant multiplier as per the
\ndecision of the Honourable Apex Court in Sarala Varma case  reported in 2009(1)
\nTNMAC 1 is “15”.  Hence the compensation works out under the structured formula
\nis Rs.2,000\/- x 12 x 15 x 35\/100= Rs.1,26,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t14. The learned Counsel for the second respondent submits that if the
\nmultiplier method is adopted, there is no justification to award Rs.10,000\/-
\ntowards grievous injuries.  The learned Counsel for the appellant has no
\nobjection for deleting the said amount.  Hence  a sum of Rs.10,000\/- awarded by
\nthe Tribunal towards grievous injuries is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. Fourthly, the appellant claims Rs.73,000\/- towards medical expenses
\nbased on the medical bills produced.  However, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000\/-.
\nThe learned Counsel for the appellant does not press this claim and he is
\nsatisfied with Rs.50,000\/- as awarded by the Tribunal, particularly, after the
\nlearned Counsel for the second respondent pointed out that there are defects in
\nthe bills.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. The next issue is relating to the compensation awarded towards pain
\nand sufferings.  The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000\/- towards pain and sufferings.
\nAccording to the learned Counsel for the appellant, it is on the lower side.  At
\nthis juncture, the learned Counsel for the second respondent suggests that the
\nsame could be modified as Rs.10,000\/-, for which the learned Counsel for the
\nappellant has no objection.  Hence Rs.10,000\/- is awarded towards pain and
\nsufferings.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. Finally, the issue relating to non awarding of any amount towards
\nfuture medical expenses has to be resolved.  According to the appellant, he
\nshould have been awarded  Rs.25,000\/- for removal of steel plates by way of
\nsurgery.  The evidence of the doctor is relied on in this regard.  At this
\njuncture, the learned Counsel for the second respondent submits that he has no
\nobjection for granting Rs.10,000\/- towards future medical expenses instead of
\nRs.25,000\/- as deposed by the doctor. The learned Counsel for the appellant has
\nno objection for the said suggestion of Rs.10,000\/- towards future medical
\nexpenses and accordingly, Rs.10,000\/- is granted towards future medical
\nexpenses.  There is no dispute for granting Rs.5,000\/- for extra nourishment and
\nfor transport charges. Accordingly, that amount is confirmed. Hence, the award
\nof the Tribunal is modified as follows:<\/p>\n
\n\n\t(i)   for loss of income\t\tRs.1,26,000\n\t(ii)  for extra nutrition and\n\t\tfor transport charges\t \tRs.   5,000\n\t(iii) for pain and sufferings\t        Rs.  10,000\n\t(iv)  for medical bills\t\t        Rs.  50,000\n\t(v)   for future medical expenses\tRs.  10,000\n\t\t\t\t\t\t-----------\n\t\t\t\tTotal\t\tRs.2,01,000\n\t\t\t\t\t\t-----------\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t18. Though the appellant seeks  7.5% interest for the enhanced
\ncompensation, since the Tribunal awarded 6% interest for the compensation,  I am
\nnot inclined to interfere with the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.  The second respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
\nenhanced compensation with the same rate of interest as ordered by the Tribunal,
\nwithin a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
\nto the credit of M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
\nTribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai.   This Civil Miscellaneous
\nAppeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
ssl<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
\nChief Judicial Magistrate,
\nSivagangai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K.Vijayakumar vs C.Nagendran on 20 April, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 20\/04\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN C.M.A.(MD)No.1148 of 2007 K.Vijayakumar … Appellant \/ Petitioner Vs 1. C.Nagendran 2. M\/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, 127\/8, Madurai Road, Virudhunagar-626 001. … Respondents \/Respondents […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174374","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Vijayakumar vs C.Nagendran on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Vijayakumar vs C.Nagendran on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-28T00:29:07+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Vijayakumar vs C.Nagendran on 20 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-28T00:29:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2239,\"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\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010\",\"name\":\"K.Vijayakumar vs C.Nagendran on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-28T00:29:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Vijayakumar vs C.Nagendran on 20 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.Vijayakumar vs C.Nagendran on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Vijayakumar vs C.Nagendran on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-28T00:29:07+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Vijayakumar vs C.Nagendran on 20 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-28T00:29:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010"},"wordCount":2239,"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\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010","name":"K.Vijayakumar vs C.Nagendran on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-28T00:29:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vijayakumar-vs-c-nagendran-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Vijayakumar vs C.Nagendran on 20 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174374","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=174374"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174374\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174374"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174374"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174374"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}