{"id":181119,"date":"2011-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011"},"modified":"2016-12-06T23:31:56","modified_gmt":"2016-12-06T18:01:56","slug":"the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"The Superintending Engineer vs Pandiammal on 2 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Superintending Engineer vs Pandiammal on 2 February, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 02\/02\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nC.M.A.(MD)No.518 of 2003\n\nThe Superintending Engineer,\nMadurai Electricity Distribution Circle,\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board,\nK.Pudur, Madurai - 7.\t\t \t    .. Appellant\n\nVs\n\nPandiammal\t\t      \t\t    .. Respondent\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923\nagainst the order dated 20.01.2003 made in W.C.No.316 of 2001, on the file of\nthe learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation, Madurai.\n\n!For Appellant\t... Mr.M.Suresh Kumar\n^For Respondent\t... Mr.R.Thangasamy\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tChallenge is made in this appeal, to the award of Rs.3,05,922\/-, dated<br \/>\n20.01.2003 and made in W.C.No.316 of 2001, on the file of the learned Deputy<br \/>\nCommissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation, Madurai, by the respondent in<br \/>\nthe claim petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal<br \/>\nmay be summarized as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe deceased Rajasekar is the son of the respondent herein. He is a<br \/>\nDiplomo Holder in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and in such capacity,<br \/>\nhe had been working under the appellant\/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as a<br \/>\ncontract labour at the rate of Rs.100\/- per day towards daily wages. That on<br \/>\n14.06.2001, at about 02.30 p.m., while he was working for the installation of a<br \/>\nnew electric pole in between pole Nos.VN29 and VN30 in surveyor colony-<br \/>\nMattuthavani road, got electrocuted and died instantaneously during the course<br \/>\nof his employment under Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nElectricity Board, Madurai. At the time of his death, he was aged about 24 years<br \/>\nand was getting a sum of Rs.3,000\/- per month and hence, the respondent being<br \/>\nhis mother had filed a claim petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour<br \/>\nfor Workmen Compensation claiming a sum of Rs.3,27,705\/- towards compensation.<br \/>\nThe appellant\/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board being the respondent in the claim<br \/>\npetition had contested the claim on various grounds.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.On appreciation of the evidence and considering the other materials<br \/>\navailable on record, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen<br \/>\nCompensation, Madurai had proceeded to pass an award of Rs.3,05,922\/- directing<br \/>\nthe appellant\/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to pay the award amount with interest<br \/>\nat the rate of 12% p.a from the date of the accident. Hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant while advancing his<br \/>\nargument has submitted that the deceased cannot be characterised and brought<br \/>\nwithin the ambit to Section 2(n) of the Workmen&#8217;s Compensation Act, 1923 to<br \/>\ndefine him as a workman. Secondly, he has also submitted that the appellant<br \/>\nboard being the principal employer is not liable to pay any compensation, under<br \/>\nthe provision of the Act to the respondent. Thirdly, he has also submitted that<br \/>\nthe finding of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen<br \/>\nCompensation, Madurai that the death arose out of and during the course of<br \/>\nemployment of the appellant board is not sustainable under the Workmen&#8217;s<br \/>\nCompensation Act, 1923.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.During the course of his argument he has also drawn the attention of<br \/>\nthis Court to the substantial questions of law which are formulated on the<br \/>\ngrounds of appeal. It is pertinent to note here that the appeal has been<br \/>\nadmitted on two substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;1) Was there any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2) Whether the quantum of compensation fixed on the basis of the daily<br \/>\nwages at Rs.80\/- is sustainable both in law and on facts?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the deceased was<br \/>\nonly a contract labour and hence Electricity Board is not at all liable to pay<br \/>\ncompensation. This issue was also considered by the  learned Deputy Commissioner<br \/>\nof Labour for Workmen Compensation, Madurai and decided in favour of the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.It is obvious note to here that the respondent in his counter statement<br \/>\nhas stated that the engagement of the deceased was as a contract labour and that<br \/>\nhis death was occurred on account of electric shock, when he was working on<br \/>\n14.06.2001. When there is specific admission on the part of the appellant-Board,<br \/>\nthe issue that there was no employer and employee relationship between the<br \/>\ndeceased and the appellant-Board will not arise.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.It may be appropriate to refer the decision in Mahmood Vs. Balwant Singh<br \/>\nreported in 1979 (39) FLR 417 (A11.HC) : 1980 LIC 300, in which it is observed<br \/>\nthat:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Payment on daily wages is matter of convenience and mutual adjustment<br \/>\nbetween worker and employer. To cover a person under the definition of workman<br \/>\nhis nature of employment is the decisive factor and not its duration hence a<br \/>\nperson even though employed on daily wages for a single day is workman under the<br \/>\nAct.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.On coming to the instant case on hand, it is explicitely admitted by<br \/>\nthe respondent that the deceased was working as a contract labour under the<br \/>\nappellant-Board and therefore, the deceased being the contract labour will<br \/>\ndefinitely come under the definition of Workman as defined under Section 2(n) of<br \/>\nthe Workmen&#8217;s Compensation Act, 1923.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.Further, it is also important to point out here that the respondent had<br \/>\nexamined herself as P.W.1 and during the course of her examination Exs.A1 to A6<br \/>\nwere marked. As rightly observed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour<br \/>\nfor Workmen Compensation, Madurai, Exs.A4 and A5 would go to show that the<br \/>\ndeceased was a Diplomo Holder in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and the<br \/>\nTransfer Certificate under Ex.A4, reveals that his date of birth is 08.11.1975<br \/>\nand hence at the time of his death his age was about 25 years. On the basis of<br \/>\nEx.A6, Circular of the Secretary, TNEB, the schedule of rates of wages  fixed by<br \/>\nthe PWD, has to be followed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.The learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation,<br \/>\nMadurai has fixed the daily wage of the deceased at Rs.80\/- and therefore, his<br \/>\nmonthly income was fixed at Rs.2,400\/-. Since the deceased was aged about 25<br \/>\nyears, the age and factor was fixed at Rs.216.91 as per Schedule 4 of the<br \/>\nWorkmen&#8217;s Compensation Act, 1923 and on that basis, the quantum was arrived at<br \/>\nRs.2,60,292\/- (Rs.2400X50\/100 X 216.91=Rs.2,60,292\/-).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.Besides this, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen<br \/>\nCompensation, Madurai has also determined that as per Section (4-A)(3)(a) of the<br \/>\nWorkmen&#8217;s Compensation Act, 1923, the applicant is entitled to get interest at<br \/>\n12% p.a and accordingly from 14.06.2001 to 31.02.2001, the interest at the rate<br \/>\nof 12% p.a has been calculated at Rs.43,130\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.Besides this, as per Section 4(4) of the Workmen&#8217;s Compensation Act<br \/>\n(Amended Act 46\/2000), it has been determined that the respondent is entitled to<br \/>\nget Rs.2,500\/- towards funeral expenses.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.The learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation, has<br \/>\nultimately determined that the respondent being the mother of the deceased is<br \/>\nentitled to get a sum of Rs.3,05,922\/- (Rs.2,60,292 + Rs.2,500 + Rs.43,130\/-).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.On careful analysation of the materials available on record and on<br \/>\nconsidering the award passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for<br \/>\nWorkmen Compensation, Madurai, this Court is of the considered opinion that the<br \/>\ninterest calculated by the  learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen<br \/>\nCompensation, Madurai from 14.06.2001 ie., from the date  of  incident  is  not<br \/>\ncorrect  as  per  Section<br \/>\n(4-A)(3)(a) of the Workmen&#8217;s Compensation Act, 1923 and the interest at the rate<br \/>\nof 12% p.a shall have to be calculated 30 days after the incident.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17.In the result, the award of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour<br \/>\nfor Workmen Compensation a sum of Rs.2,60,292\/- and funeral expenses at<br \/>\nRs.2,500\/- as per Section 4(4) of the Workmen&#8217;s Compensation Act, 1923 is<br \/>\nconfirmed. But the interest which was calculated from the date of incident ie.,<br \/>\nfrom 14.06.2001 is set aside. The interest at the rate of 12% p.a as per the<br \/>\nproviso to Section (4-A)(3)(a) shall have to be calculated 30 days after the<br \/>\naccident.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWith this observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No<br \/>\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>ps<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Deputy Commissioner of Labour,<br \/>\nWorkmen Compensation,<br \/>\nMadurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Superintending Engineer vs Pandiammal on 2 February, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02\/02\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN C.M.A.(MD)No.518 of 2003 The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai &#8211; 7. .. Appellant Vs Pandiammal .. Respondent Prayer Appeal filed under [&hellip;]<\/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-181119","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Superintending Engineer vs Pandiammal on 2 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Superintending Engineer vs Pandiammal on 2 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-06T18:01:56+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Superintending Engineer vs Pandiammal on 2 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-06T18:01:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1256,\"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\\\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011\",\"name\":\"The Superintending Engineer vs Pandiammal on 2 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-06T18:01:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Superintending Engineer vs Pandiammal on 2 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"The Superintending Engineer vs Pandiammal on 2 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Superintending Engineer vs Pandiammal on 2 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-06T18:01:56+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Superintending Engineer vs Pandiammal on 2 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-06T18:01:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011"},"wordCount":1256,"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\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011","name":"The Superintending Engineer vs Pandiammal on 2 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-06T18:01:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-superintending-engineer-vs-pandiammal-on-2-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Superintending Engineer vs Pandiammal on 2 February, 2011"}]},{"@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\/181119","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=181119"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181119\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181119"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181119"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181119"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}