{"id":18754,"date":"2007-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007"},"modified":"2015-12-05T21:04:55","modified_gmt":"2015-12-05T15:34:55","slug":"the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Managing Director vs Sundararajan on 19 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Managing Director vs Sundararajan on 19 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 19\/01\/2007\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR\n\nC.M.A.(MD).No.515 of 2000\nand\nC.M.A.(MD).Nos.516, 1026 & 1094 of 2000\nand\nC.M.P.(MD).Nos.4392,4393 of 2000\n\n\n\nThe Managing Director\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation\n(Kumbakonam Division II) Limited,\nTrichy.\t\t\n\t\t\t\t... Appellant in all the appeals\n\nvs.\n\n1. Sundararajan     \t \t... Respondent in CMA.515 of 2000<\/pre>\n
2. Muthu\t\t\t… Respondent in CMA.516 of 2000\n<\/p>\n
3. Sarasu\t\t\t… Respondent in CMA.1026 of2000\n<\/p>\n
4. Natarajan\t\t\t… Respondent in CMA.1094 of 2000<\/p>\n
Prayer<\/p>\n
Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the
\nJudgment and Decree dated 13.10.1999 and made in M.C.O.P.Nos.2619\/1997,
\n2618\/1997, 2623\/1997 and 2620\/1997 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
\n(3rd Additional Sub Court), Trichy and praying to set aside the same.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellant\t\t… Ms.Rajnish Pathiyil\t<\/p>\n
^For Respondents\t… Ms.A.Saravanan
\n\t\t\t    Mr.R.Devaprasad<\/p>\n
:COMMON JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
\tAll the four Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the awards
\ndated 13.10.1999 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.2619 of 1997, 2618 of 1997, 2623 of 1997
\nand 2620 of 1997 respectively, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
\n(3rd Additional Sub Court) Trichy. The above said cases along with two other
\ncases were tried jointly by the Tribunal and disposed of by a common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The respondents in all the four appeals had preferred separate claim
\npetitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.2619\/1997, 2618\/1997, 2623\/1997 & 2620\/1997 on the file
\nof Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (3rd Additional Sub Court), Trichy claiming
\nRs.1,00,000\/- for each one of the claimants as compensation for the injuries
\nsustained by him\/her in an accident said to have taken place on 24.4.1997
\ninvolving the passenger bus belonging to the appellant and having Registration
\nNo.45-N-1130. Two other persons had also filed M.C.O.P.Nos.2621\/1997 &
\n2622\/1997. Without filing any appeal in respect of the said two cases
\n(MCOP.Nos.2621\/1997 & 2622\/1997) in which a sum of Rs.6000\/- was awarded as
\ncompensation to each one of the petitioners therein, the appellant Transport
\nCorporation has filed these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. According to the respondents\/claimants, the driver of the said bus
\ndrove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a lorry that had been
\nparked on the road side and hence, he was solely responsible for the accident.
\nContending that the respondents\/claimants who happened to travel in the said bus
\nas passengers sustained injuries and hence are entitled to invoke the vicarious
\nliability of the appellant\/respondent for the fault of its driver, the
\nrespondents\/claimants had made the above said claims for compensation against
\nthe appellant\/respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The appellant\/respondent resisted the claims made by the
\nrespondents\/claimants contending that there was no fault on the part of the
\ndriver of its bus; that while he was driving the bus from east to west at a
\nmoderate speed a pedestrian (deceased) with a head load suddenly cross the road
\nfrom south to north; that on seeing the same, the driver of the bus applied its
\nbreaks and swerved it towards right in an attempt to avoid hitting the said
\npedestrian and that only under such circumstances, the bus came into contact
\nwith a lorry that had been parked on the northern side of the road. The
\nappellant\/respondent before the Tribunal had also denied the petition averments
\nregarding the respective age, profession, income, nature of injuries and
\ndisability sustained by each one of the claimants.  With the further contention
\nthat the claim made by each one of the claimants was highly excessive and
\nexorbitant, the appellant herein had prayed for the dismissal of all the
\npetitions with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The Tribunal, after framing the following issues common for all the
\nMCOPs conducted a joint trial. The issues framed by the Tribunal are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t1) Whether the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging
\nto the respondent (appellant herein) and having Registration No.TN-45-N-1130 was
\nthe cause of the accident that took place on 24.4.1997?\n<\/p>\n
\t2) Whether each one of the claimants (respondent in these appeals) is
\nentitled to compensation? If so, what is the reasonable amount that can be
\nawarded as compensation to each one of them?\n<\/p>\n
\t6. In the common enquiry conducted in all the above said MCOPs, 7 persons
\nwere examined and 12 documents were marked on the side of the respondents
\nherein\/claimants. On the side of the appellant\/ respondent before the Tribunal,
\nonly one witness was examined and no document was marked.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. After hearing the arguments advanced on both sides and after critically
\nappraising the evidence adduced on both sides, the Tribunal answered the first
\nissue in favour of the claimants. Based on the answer regarding the first issue
\nand relying on the evidence of claimants side witnesses, especially the evidence
\nof P.W.7-the Medical Officer and the disability certificates marked on the side
\nof the claimants as Ex.A.9 to A.12, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that each
\none of the claimants was entitled to be compensated by the appellant and awarded
\na sum of Rs.75,000\/- for the respondent in CMA.No.515 of 2000 (claimant in
\nMCOP.No.2619\/1997), Rs.65,000\/- for the respondent in CMA.No.516 of 2000
\n(claimant in MCOP.No.2618\/1997), Rs.70,000\/- for the respondent in CMA.No.1026
\nof 2000 (claimant in MCOP.No.2623\/1997) and Rs.65,000\/- for the respondent in
\nCMA.No.1094 of 2000 (claimant in MCOP.No.2620\/1997) as compensation. Rs.6000\/-
\nwas awarded as compensation to each one of the claimants in MCOP.Nos.2621 & 2622
\nof 1997 against which no appeal has been preferred. Hence, we are not concerned
\nwith the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Aggrieved by and challenging the awards passed in MCOP.Nos.2619\/1997,
\n2618\/1997, 2623\/1997 and 2620\/1997, the appellant\/respondent before the Tribunal
\nhas preferred all these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals on various grounds set out
\nin the memorandum of appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. As the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence as well as quantum
\nhas been assailed, the following points for consideration arise in these
\nappeals:\n<\/p>\n
\t1) Whether the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging
\nto the appellant\/respondent and having Registration No.TN-45-N-1130 was the
\ncause of the accident that took place on 24.4.1997?\n<\/p>\n
\t2) Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to each one
\nof the claimants is excessive or unreasonable?\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The appellant in all the above appeals have challenged the award not
\nonly on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to
\neach one of the claimants is excessive, but also on the ground that the very
\nfinding on the question of negligence made by the Tribunal is erroneous. Even
\nthen, the learned counsel for the appellant conceded that he was not in a
\nposition to advance any argument regarding the question of negligence and
\nconfined his arguments with regard to the reasonableness of the quantum of
\ncompensation awarded by the Tribunal to each one of the claimants. Perhaps due
\nto the fact that the passenger bus had hit the stationary lorry parked on the
\nroad side, after going to the wrong side would have prompted the counsel not to
\nventure any attempt at advancing arguments on the question of negligence. As the
\nlearned counsel for the appellant has not advanced any arguments regarding the
\nquestion of negligence, I am of the view that the finding of the Tribunal
\nholding that the driver of the appellant’s bus drove the vehicle in a rash and
\nnegligent manner and caused the accident has to be confirmed and no case has
\nbeen made out warranting any interference with the said finding of the Tribunal.
\nHence, finding of the Tribunal regarding issue No.1 is hereby confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. CMA.No.515 of 2006:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(i) The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2619\/1997 is the respondent in
\nCMA.No.515 of 2000. In his claim petition, Sundarrajan has stated that he
\nsustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body including loss of teeth
\nand injuries over the right knee joint and head for which he had treatment
\ninitially at Government Hospital, Trichy and then in a Private Hospital. It is
\nhis further averment that inspite of such treatment, he sustained permanent
\ndisability. Ex.A.4 is the case sheet issued to P.W.2-Sundarrajan in Annal Gandhi
\nMemorial Government Hospital, Trichirappalli. From the evidence of P.W.2 and
\nP.W.7- the Medical Officer who issued the disability certificate, Ex.A.4-case
\nsheet and Ex.A.10-disability certificate, it is found that P.W.2-Sundarrajan had
\nlost 5 teeth on the upper jaw and two more teeth one on upper jaw and one on the
\nlower jaw had lost their grip. The doctor has assessed P.W2’s permanent
\ndisability at 35%. As there is no contra evidence the assessment made by the
\ndoctor has to be accepted to be correct and hence it is hereby held that the
\nclaimant (P.W.2) has suffered 35% permanent disability. Even then, the same may
\nbe a functional disability causing inconvenience for taking food and some times
\nhindrance to the fluency in speech. But the same can be rectified by fixing
\nproper dentures. The said disability will in no way come in the way of his
\nearning. The said disability may be only functional and the same will not result
\nin loss of earning capacity. Therefore no amount can be awarded for the loss of
\nfuture earning capacity.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Without supported by any medical bill, the Tribunal seems to have
\nawarded a sum of Rs.15,000\/- as compensation for medical expenses, according to
\nthe arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. No doubt the
\npetitioner has not produced any document to show that he spent any amount
\ntowards medical expenses. But it cannot be denied that the petitioner might have
\nspent or shall have to spend, if not spent earlier, a substantial amount for
\nfixing dentures. At the rate of Rs.2500\/- per tooth, a sum of Rs.12,500\/- will
\nbe needed to fix dentures. Considering the age of the claimant and the future
\nnecessity to change the dentures another some of Rs.6000\/- can be added and the
\ntotal amount towards future medical expenses, if not incurred earlier, can be
\nassessed at Rs.18,500\/-.  The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000\/- towards medical
\nexpenses. Therefore, the same is liable to be enhanced to Rs.18,500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) The claimant while being examined as P.W.2 has stated that his
\nmonthly income prior to accident was Rs.2000\/- as a cooli engaged in breaking
\nstones. There is no other corroborating piece of evidence in this regard.
\nAssuming that he would have earned Rs.1500\/- per month and that he would have
\ntaken complete rest for two months resulting in total loss of earning for the
\nsaid period, Rs.3000\/- can be awarded as compensation for the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) A sum of Rs.2000\/- awarded by the Tribunal  for extra nourishment,
\ntransport expenses and the expenditure incurred for the persons who might have
\naccompanied the petitioner shall be reasonable and hence, the same deserves to
\nbe confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v) The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3000\/- towards pain and suffering.
\nThe said amount is definitely on the lower side. Taking into account, the nature
\nof injuries and disability sustained by the claimant (P.W.2) a sum of Rs.7500\/-
\nin this regard shall be the reasonable compensation. Therefore, the award of
\nRs.3000\/- by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is liable to be increased
\nto Rs.7500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) The medical officer (P.W.7) has assessed the disability at 35%. The
\ndisability certificate issued by him has been marked as Ex.A.10. As there is no
\ncontra evidence and nothing inherent in the evidence adduced on the side of the
\ninjured claimant to show that the assessment of permanent disability is
\nexcessive, this Court accepts the evidence of P.W.7 and holds that the claimant
\n(P.W.2) has suffered 35% permanent disability.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii) In view of the finding recorded supra, that the claimant (P.W.2) has
\nsuffered 35% permanent disability and that the same may be functional alone
\nwithout affecting his earning capacity and in view of the fact that no amount is
\nawarded for loss of earning capacity, it is just and necessary that conventional
\ndamages for the loss of comforts occasioned by the disability should be awarded.
\nConsidering the nature of disability and the fact that substantial amount is
\nawarded for correcting the disability by fixing dentures, this Court comes to a
\nconclusion that awarding a sum of Rs.20,000\/- shall be reasonable. In view of
\nthe discussions made above, the total compensation to which the respondent in
\nCMA.No.515 of 2000\/claimant in MCOP.No.2619\/1997 is entitled to is fixed at
\nRs.51,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t(viii) Hence, I am of the considered view that the award passed by the
\nTribunal in favour of the respondent in CMA.No.515 of 2000 deserves to be
\nreduced to Rs.51,000\/- from Rs.75,000\/-. In all other respects, the award of the
\nTribunal shall stand confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. CMA.No.516 of 2000:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(i) The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2618\/1997 is the respondent in
\nCMA.No.516 of 2000. He claims to have sustained injuries on the lower jaw, head
\nand mouth for which he was given treatment for two weeks as an inpatient in the
\nGovernment Hospital, Trichy. It is his further case that after being discharged
\nfrom the said Government Hospital, he had treatment in a Private Hospital and
\nthat inspite of the best treatment given to him he suffered permanent
\ndisability. In his evidence as P.W.6, he would say that he sustained fracture on
\nthe lower jaw, lost two teeth in the upper jaw, sustained a cut injury on the
\nright side of the tongue and sustained grievous injuries on the right and left
\nknees for which, he was given treatment as an inpatient for 15 days in the
\nGovernment Hospital, Trichy at the first instance and thereafter in a Private
\nHospital. There is nothing on record to show that he paid any amount for the
\ntreatment provided to him in the Government Hospital, Trichy. He has also not
\nproduced any document to prove the alleged treatment given at Private Hospital.
\nWithout any document evidencing medical expenditure, according to the arguments
\nadvanced on the side of the appellant, the Tribunal seems to have awarded a sum
\nof Rs.15,000\/- as compensation for medical expenses. We can come to a conclusion
\nthat he would not have paid any amount for the treatment received by him at the
\nGovernment Hospital, Trichy.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) On the other hand, it is quite clear from the evidence of P.W.6 and
\nthe doctor who was examined as P.W.7 that on the upper jaw he had lost one tooth
\ncompletely and that one of the molars on the right side was found broken at the
\ntime of examination of P.W.6 by P.W.7. For providing denture for the lost tooth
\nand cap for the broken tooth or a denture after the removal of the broken tooth,
\nhe may have to incur an expenditure of atleast Rs.5000\/- if not spent earlier.
\nConsidering the age of the petitioner (Muthu) and the necessity to replace the
\nold denture with a new one in future, the expenditure may be increased by
\nRs.2500\/-. Hence, a sum of Rs.7500\/- as compensation towards medical expenses
\nshall alone be reasonable and the amount of Rs.15,000\/- awarded by the Tribunal
\ntowards medical expenses is bound to be reduced to Rs.7500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) The claimant, while being examined as P.W.6 has stated that he was
\nhaving an income of Rs.50 per day. Even according to his statement, his monthly
\nincome prior to accident was Rs.1500\/-. Assuming that the petitioner would have
\nrequired rest for two months and thus, incurred loss of total earning for the
\nabove said period of two months, a sum of Rs.3000\/- can be awarded for the same
\nas compensation. For extra nourishment, transport expenses and the expenditure
\nincurred for the persons who would have accompanied the claimant, awarding a sum
\nof Rs.2000\/- shall be reasonable. Hence, the award of Rs.2000\/- by the Tribunal
\non the above said head shall be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3000\/- towards pain and suffering.
\nThe said amount is on the lower side. Taking into account, the nature of
\ninjuries and disability sustained by the claimant (P.W.6) a sum of Rs.6000\/- in
\nthis regard as compensation shall be reasonable. Therefore, the award of
\nRs.3000\/- by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is liable to be increased
\nto Rs.6000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v) The medical officer (P.W.7) has assessed the disability at 25%. Thd
\ndisability certificate issued by him has been marked as Ex.A.9. As there is no
\ncontra evidence and nothing inherent in the evidence adduced on the side of the
\ninjured claimant to show that the assessment of permanent disability is
\nexcessive, this Court accepts the evidence of P.W.7 and holds that the claimant
\n(P.W.6) has suffered 25% permanent disability.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) In view of the finding recorded supra, that the claimant (P.W.6) has
\nsuffered 25% permanent disability and that the same may be functional alone
\nwithout affecting his earning capacity and in view of the fact that no amount is
\nawarded for loss of earning capacity, it is just and necessary that conventional
\ndamages for the loss of comforts occasioned by the disability should be awarded.
\nConsidering the nature of disability and the fact that substantial amount is
\nawarded for correcting the disability by fixing dentures, this Court comes to a
\nconclusion that awarding a sum of Rs.15,000\/- shall be reasonable. In view of
\nthe discussions made above, the total compensation to which the respondent in
\nCMA.No.516 of 2000\/claimant in MCOP.No.2618\/1997 will be entitled to is fixed at
\nRs.33,500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii) Hence, I am of the considered view that the award passed by the
\nTribunal in favour of the respondent in CMA.No.516 of 2000 deserves to be
\nreduced to Rs.33,500\/- from Rs.65,000\/-. In all other respects, the award of the
\nTribunal shall stand confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. CMA.No.1026 of 2000:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Sarasu, the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2623\/1997 is the respondent in
\nCMA.No.1026 of 2000. She has stated that she lost four teeth on the lower jaw
\nand sustained injuries all over the body for which, she initially took treatment
\nin the Government Hospital, Kulithalai and thereafter, in the Government
\nHospital, Trichy followed by treatment at a Private Hospital.  From the evidence
\nof P.W.5 and P.W.7-the Medical Officer who issued the disability certificate and
\nEx.A.7-case sheet, it is obvious that 4 teeth in the lower jaw were found
\nelevated and had to be removed. Without supported by any medical bill, according
\nto the arguments advanced on the side of the appellant, the  Tribunal seems to
\nhave awarded a sum of Rs.15,000\/- as compensation for medical expenses. No
\ndoubt, the petitioner has not produced any document to show, he spent any amount
\ntowards medical expenses. But it cannot be denied that the petitioner should
\nhave spent or shall have to spend, if not spent earlier, a substantial amount
\nfor fixing dentures. At the rate of Rs.2500\/- per tooth, a sum of Rs.10,000\/-
\nwill be needed to fix dentures. Considering the age of the claimant (40 years as
\nper her own testimony) and the future necessity to change the dentures another
\nsum of Rs.5,000\/- can be added and the total amount towards future medical
\nexpenses, if not incurred earlier, can be assessed at Rs.15,000\/-. The Tribunal
\nhas awarded only Rs.15,000\/- towards medical expenses and hence the same is to
\nbe confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) The claimant while being examined as P.W.5 has stated that her
\nmonthly income prior to accident was Rs.2000\/- as a cooli engaged in breaking
\nstones. There is no other corroborating piece of evidence in this regard.
\nAssuming that she would have earned Rs.1500\/- per month and that she would have
\ntaken complete rest for two months resulting in total loss of earning for the
\nsaid period, Rs.3000\/- can be awarded as compensation for the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) A sum of Rs.2000\/- awarded by the Tribunal  for extra nourishment,
\ntransport expenses and the expenditure incurred for the persons who might have
\naccompanied the petitioner shall be reasonable and hence, the same deserves to
\nbe confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3000\/- towards pain and suffering.
\nThe said amount is on the lower side. Taking into account, the nature of
\ninjuries and disability sustained by the claimant (P.W.5) a sum of Rs.7500\/- in
\nthis regard shall be the reasonable compensation. Therefore, the award of
\nRs.3000\/- by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is liable to be increased
\nto Rs.7500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v) The medical officer (P.W.7) has assessed the disability at 30%. Thd
\ndisability certificate issued by her has been marked as Ex.A.12. As there is no
\ncontra evidence and nothing inherent in the evidence adduced on the side of the
\ninjured claimant to show that the assessment of permanent disability is
\nexcessive, this Court accepts the evidence of P.W.7 and holds that the claimant
\n(P.W.5) has suffered 30% permanent disability.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) In view of the finding recorded supra, that the claimant (P.W.5) has
\nsuffered 30% permanent disability and that the same may be functional alone
\nwithout affecting her earning capacity and in view of the fact that no amount is
\nawarded for loss of earning capacity, it is just and necessary that conventional
\ndamages for the loss of comforts occasioned by the disability should be awarded.
\nConsidering the nature of disability and the fact that substantial amount is
\nawarded for correcting the disability by fixing dentures, this Court comes to a
\nconclusion that awarding a sum of Rs.16,000\/- shall be reasonable. In view of
\nthe discussions made above, the total compensation to which the respondent in
\nCMA.No.1026 of 2000\/claimant in MCOP.No.2623\/1997 is entitled to is fixed at
\nRs.43,500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii) Hence, I am of the considered view that the award passed by the
\nTribunal in favour of the respondent in CMA.No.1026 of 2000 deserves to be
\nreduced to Rs.43,500\/- from Rs.70,000\/-. In all other respects, the award of the
\nTribunal shall stand confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. CMA.No.1094 of 2006:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(i) The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2620\/1997 is the respondent in
\nCMA.No.1094 of 2000. The claimant Natarajan (P.W.3) has deposed that he lost one
\ntooth on the upper jaw and sustained injuries over the face and both knees for
\nwhich he took first aid treatment in the Government Hospital, Kulithalai and
\nthereafter, in the Government Hospital, Trichy followed by treatment at a
\nPrivate Hospital. Even though, the claimant as P.W.3 would have stated that he
\nlost only one tooth, the doctor who was examined as P.W.7 has not only given a
\ncertificate to the effect that P.W.3 had lost 5 teeth altogether in the upper
\njaw and that 2 teeth in the lower jaw had been broken resulting change of
\ncolour, but also assessed the disability of P.W.3 at 30% and issued Ex.A.11-
\ndisability certificate. It can’t be believed that the petitioner (P.W.3) had
\nlost altogether 6 teeth in the accident. The percentage of disability arrived at
\nby the doctor (P.W.7) also cannot be accepted to be correct. From the evidence
\nof P.W.3 and Ex.A.5-case sheet, it is obvious that  in the upper jaw two
\nincisors were missing and the crown of one tooth up to the middle third had
\nfractured. The medical officer (P.W.7) has assessed the disability suffered by
\nthe claimant (P.W.3) at 30% compared with the assessment of disability made in
\nrespect of the other claimants by the very same doctor, the said assessment of
\ndisability suffered by the claimant (P.W.3) seems to be incorrect and excessive.
\nAs he has lost two teeth altogether and another tooth had fractured, this Court
\ncomes to a conclusion that the said disability can be properly assessed at 15%.
\nThough the same is a permanent disability, the said disability will in no way
\ncome in the way of his earning. The said disability may be only functional and
\nthe same will not result in loss of earning capacity. Therefore, no amount can
\nbe awarded for the loss of future earning capacity.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Without supported by any medical bill the Tribunal seems to have
\nawarded a sum of Rs.15,000\/- as compensation for medical expenses, according to
\nthe arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. No doubt the
\npetitioner has not produced any document to show that he spent any amount
\ntowards medical expenses. But it cannot be denied that the petitioner should
\nhave spent or shall have to spend, if not spent earlier, a substantial amount
\nfor fixing dentures for the missing teeth and cap for the broken tooth or
\ndenture after extraction of the broken tooth. At the rate of Rs.2500\/- per
\ntooth, a sum of Rs.7500\/- will be needed to fix dentures. Considering the age of
\nthe claimant (47 years as per his testimony) and the future necessity to change
\nthe dentures another some of Rs.3000\/- can be added and the total amount towards
\nfuture medical expenses, if not incurred earlier, can be assessed at Rs.10,500\/-
\n. But the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000\/- towards medical expenses. Therefore,
\nthe same should be reduced to Rs.10,500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) The claimant while being examined as P.W.3 has stated that his
\nmonthly income prior to accident was Rs.2000\/- as a cooli engaged in breaking
\nstones. There is no other corroborating piece of evidence in this regard.
\nAssuming that he would have earned Rs.1500\/- per month and that he would have
\ntaken complete rest for two months resulting in total loss of earning for the
\nsaid period, Rs.3000\/- can be awarded as compensation for the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) A sum of Rs.2000\/- awarded by the Tribunal  for extra nourishment,
\ntransport expenses and the expenditure incurred for the persons who might have
\naccompanied the petitioner shall be reasonable and hence, the same deserves to
\nbe confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v) The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3000\/- towards pain and suffering.
\nThe said amount is definitely on the lower side. Taking into account, the nature
\nof injuries and disability sustained by the claimant (P.W.3) a sum of Rs.6000\/-
\nin this regard shall be the reasonable compensation. Therefore, the award of
\nRs.3000\/- by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is liable to be increased
\nto Rs.6000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) In view of the finding recorded supra, that the claimant (P.W.3) has
\nsuffered 15% permanent disability and that the same may be functional alone
\nwithout affecting his earning capacity and in view of the fact that no amount is
\nawarded for loss of earning capacity, it is just and necessary that conventional
\ndamages for the loss of comforts occasioned by the disability should be awarded.
\nConsidering the nature of disability and the fact that substantial amount is
\nawarded for correcting the disability by fixing dentures, this Court comes to a
\nconclusion that awarding a sum of Rs.10,500\/- shall be reasonable. In view of
\nthe discussions made above, the total compensation to which the respondent in
\nCMA.No.1094 of 2000\/claimant in MCOP.No.2620\/1997 is entitled to is fixed at
\nRs.31,500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii) Hence, I am of the considered view that the award passed by the
\nTribunal in favour of the respondent in CMA.No.1094 of 2000 deserves to be
\nreduced to Rs.31,500\/- from Rs.65,000\/-. In all other respects, the award of the
\nTribunal shall stand confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. In the result,\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) C.M.A.No.515 of 2000 is partly allowed and the award passed by the
\nTribunal is modified by reducing the compensation from Rs.75,000\/- to
\nRs.51,000\/-. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand
\nconfirmed.  There shall be no order as to payment of costs in the appeal.
\nConsequently, connected
\nC.M.P.No.4392 of 2000 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) C.M.A.No.516 of 2000 is partly allowed and the award passed by the
\nTribunal is modified by reducing the compensation from Rs.65,000\/- to
\nRs.33,500\/-. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand
\nconfirmed.  There shall be no order as to payment of costs in the appeal.
\nConsequently, connected C.M.P.No.4393 of 2000 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) C.M.A.No.1026 of 2000 is partly allowed and the award passed by the
\nTribunal is modified by reducing the compensation from Rs.70,000\/- to
\nRs.43,500\/-. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand
\nconfirmed.  There shall be no order as to payment of costs in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) C.M.A.No.1094 of 2000 is partly allowed and the award passed by the
\nTribunal is modified by reducing the compensation from Rs.65,000\/- to
\nRs.31,500\/-. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand
\nconfirmed.  There shall be no order as to payment of costs in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
sgl<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Managing Director vs Sundararajan on 19 January, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19\/01\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A.(MD).No.515 of 2000 and C.M.A.(MD).Nos.516, 1026 & 1094 of 2000 and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.4392,4393 of 2000 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division II) Limited, Trichy. […]<\/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-18754","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Managing Director vs Sundararajan on 19 January, 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\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Managing Director vs Sundararajan on 19 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-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=\"2007-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-05T15:34:55+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=\"24 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-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Managing Director vs Sundararajan on 19 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-05T15:34:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4751,\"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-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007\",\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Sundararajan on 19 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-05T15:34:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Sundararajan on 19 January, 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":"The Managing Director vs Sundararajan on 19 January, 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\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Managing Director vs Sundararajan on 19 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-05T15:34:55+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Managing Director vs Sundararajan on 19 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-05T15:34:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007"},"wordCount":4751,"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-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007","name":"The Managing Director vs Sundararajan on 19 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-05T15:34:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sundararajan-on-19-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Managing Director vs Sundararajan on 19 January, 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\/18754","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=18754"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18754\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18754"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}