{"id":19045,"date":"2008-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008"},"modified":"2015-08-19T03:43:15","modified_gmt":"2015-08-18T22:13:15","slug":"the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Managing Director vs D.Pratap on 13 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Managing Director vs D.Pratap on 13 October, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:13\/10\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.519 of 2004\nand\nC.M.P.No.2610 of 2004\n\nThe Managing Director\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,\nMadurai Division-I, Ltd.,\nMadurai 625 016.\t\t.. Appellant\n\nVs\n\nD.Pratap\t\t\t.. Respondent\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the\nJudgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2001 on the file of the Motor\nAccidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Sivagangai dated 30.06.2003.\n\n!For Appellant\t... M\/s.C.Ambujam Selvarani\n^For Respondent ... No appearance\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant\/respondent as<br \/>\nagainst the award dated 30.06.2003 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.31 of 2001 by the<br \/>\nMotor Accidents Claims Tribunal viz., Sub Court, Sivagangai in awarding a total<br \/>\nsum of Rs.2,13,000\/- as compensation along with interest at 9% per annum from<br \/>\nthe date of filing of the petition till date of payment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The facts of the claim in nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) On the date of accident, the respondent\/claimant was travelling in the<br \/>\nappellant\/respondent&#8217;s bus bearing Registration No.TN-58-N-0299 from Madurai to<br \/>\nTirunelveli to attend his cousin&#8217;s marriage. The appellant\/ respondent&#8217;s<br \/>\nTransport Corporation bus driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner<br \/>\nand when the bus came near to Etturvattam Pillaiyar Koil, a woman tried to cross<br \/>\nthe road from west to east and the driver tried to turn the bus to the west side<br \/>\n(right side) and because of the rash and negligent driving of the appellant<br \/>\nTransport Corporation&#8217;s bus driver, by losing control of the bus went to the<br \/>\nextreme right side of the road (western side) and the bus dashed against a<br \/>\nstationery lorry bearing Registration No.TDI 9626, facing the northern direction<br \/>\nand then fell on its left side. As result of heavy impact of the accident, the<br \/>\nrespondent\/claimant sustained fracture and suffered bruises all over the body<br \/>\nand in all five passengers including the respondent\/claimant suffered grievous<br \/>\ninjuries, besides two of them lost their lives.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) The respondent\/claimant was taken to Sattur Government Hospital where<br \/>\nhe was given the first aid and later he was referred to Tirunelveli Government<br \/>\nHospital. The respondent\/claimant took a taxi from Sattur to Tirunelveli and got<br \/>\nhimself admitted in Getwell Hospitals Tirunelveli on the night of 27.05.2000 and<br \/>\nhe received treatment. For further treatment, the respondent\/claimant was<br \/>\nadmitted into the Apollo Hospitals, Madurai. On 31.05.2000, the fractured right<br \/>\narm of the respondent\/ claimant was operated upon and plating and bone grafting<br \/>\nwere performed. The respondent\/claimant was admitted into the Apollo Hospital,<br \/>\nMadurai for seven days and he was discharged on 05.06.2000 and still he is<br \/>\ntaking treatment in a private clinic at Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) The respondent\/claimant was aged 28 years, having a robust health<br \/>\nand has been practising as a Civil cum Criminal Lawyer in the Courts of<br \/>\nSivagangai and Madurai District from 23.09.1993 and earns not less than a sum of<br \/>\nRs.7,500\/- as income per month. Due to the fracture in the right arm the<br \/>\nrespondent\/claimant is unable to stretch his hand and further he is not in a<br \/>\nposition to rotate his right hand. For lifting wait, the respondent\/ claimant<br \/>\ncannot use his right hand as he used to do prior to the accident. The<br \/>\nrespondent\/claimant has incurred an expense of Rs.60,000\/- and further in future<br \/>\nhe has to spend another sum of Rs.30,000\/- for removing the plate after two<br \/>\nyears and hospitalisation expenses etc. The respondent\/claimant moderately<br \/>\nestimates his claim to an extent of Rs.4,00,000\/- together with interest at 18%<br \/>\nper annum payable to him by the appellant\/respondent. The Vachakarapatty Police<br \/>\nhave registered a criminal case in Crime No.103 of 2000 under Section 279, 337<br \/>\nand 304(A) IPC against the driver of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) The appellant\/respondent Corporation has taken a stand inter alia<br \/>\nmentioning that when the appellant\/ respondent&#8217;s bus was nearing Etturvattam, a<br \/>\npedestrian suddenly tried to cross the road from right to left and the driver of<br \/>\nthe appellant bus after seeing this, in order to avoid any accident, swerved the<br \/>\nbus towards right and in the process unexpectedly the bus was dragged  towards<br \/>\nright side and went down the right side slope and dashed against lorry which was<br \/>\nalso standing in a slanting position and capsized and hence, the accident had<br \/>\nnot taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant&#8217;s bus<br \/>\ndriver and in any event, the claim of Rs.4,00,000\/- for the simple injury<br \/>\nsustained is untenable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.Before the Tribunal, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P.1<br \/>\nto P.25 were marked on the side of respondent\/claimant. On the side of<br \/>\nappellant\/ respondent, no witness was examined and no documents were marked. On<br \/>\nan appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, after contest, the Tribunal<br \/>\nhas passed an award granting a total compensation of Rs.2,13,000\/- along with<br \/>\ninterest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of<br \/>\npayment together with proportionate costs to the respondent\/claimant payable by<br \/>\nthe appellant\/respondent Transport Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.The learned counsel for the appellant\/Transport Corporation contends<br \/>\nthat the Tribunal has not taken into consideration of the fact that the accident<br \/>\nhas taken place when the bus got capsized, which is beyond the control of the<br \/>\ndriver and notwithstanding the fact the best care and caution taken by the<br \/>\nappellant bus driver, the accident has taken place and only to avoid slanting<br \/>\nagainst a pedestrian who crossed the road suddenly, the driver swerved the bus<br \/>\non the right side and resultantly, the occurrence has taken place and in any<br \/>\nevent, the award passed by the Tribunal is exorbitant and therefore, prays for<br \/>\nallowing the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.To establish the plea of negligence, the respondent\/claimant has<br \/>\nexamined himself as P.W.1 and he has deposed that on 27.05.2000 to attend his<br \/>\ncousin&#8217;s marriage at about 3.00 p.m. in the evening he travelled in the bus TN-<br \/>\n58-N-0299 from Madurai to Tirunelveli and that the bus was proceeding from North<br \/>\nto South, in the direction of Tirunelveli and in Madurai-Tirunelveli National<br \/>\nHighway the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and<br \/>\nat about 4.30 p.m. in the evening when the bus was nearing Etturvattam Pillaiyar<br \/>\nKoil at that time a woman made an endeavour to cross the road from the direction<br \/>\nof west to east at that time the driver of the bus in a rash and negligent<br \/>\nmanner swerved his bus as a result of which the bus dashed against the<br \/>\nstationery lorry TTI 9626 which was in the opposite direction, facing north and<br \/>\nresultantly, the bus got capsized and many passengers sustained injuries and<br \/>\nthat his dress was damaged and his watch was smashed and that initially he was<br \/>\nadmitted into Sattur Government Hospital where first aid was given to him and on<br \/>\nthe same day he went to Tirunelveli Getwell Hospital from Sattur in a car and<br \/>\ngot himself admitted as an inpatient and in the Getwell Hospital on 27.05.2000<br \/>\nhe was given treatment in U slab fashion etc.<\/p>\n<p>\t6.In Ex.P.1 the informant&#8217;s name is mentioned as Sattanathan. The accused<br \/>\nname is described as Ramasamy, Government bus driver of bus bearing Registration<br \/>\nNo.TN-58-N-0299. A perusal of Ex.P.1-FIR indicates that the informant-<br \/>\nSattanathan is one of the passengers who travelled in the bus TN-58-N-0299 on<br \/>\nthe date of accident on 27.05.2000. Moreover, the informant Sattanathan in<br \/>\nEx.P.1-FIR has categorically stated that when the bus TN-58-N-0299 (in which he<br \/>\nwas travelling along with his two sons) came near to Etturvattam Pillaiyar Koil<br \/>\nat about 4.30 p.m. in the evening the driver of the bus drove the vehicle in<br \/>\nfast speed and negligently and rashly and in the Virudhunagar-Sattur main road a<br \/>\nwoman made an attempt to cross the road from west to east and when the driver of<br \/>\nthe bus swerved the bus, the bus dashed against a stationery lorry TTI 9626<br \/>\nfacing north which was standing in the left side of the road, as a result of<br \/>\nwhich their bus got capsized in the sand road of south of Pillaiyar Koil and<br \/>\nresultantly, he suffered superficial injury on the toe of his two legs and five<br \/>\npersons who travelled in his bus also sustained injuries and one person got<br \/>\nentangled and died on the spot and that the injured were taken in a bus which<br \/>\ncame that way and they were admitted into the Sattur Government Hospital where<br \/>\nthey received treatment. In the instant case, the rough sketch of the scene of<br \/>\noccurrence has been marked as Ex.P.6.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.The sum and substance of the appellant\/Transport Corporation&#8217;s<br \/>\ncontention is that the accident has not taken place due to the rash and<br \/>\nnegligent driving of the appellant\/Transport Corporation&#8217;s bus driver but the<br \/>\naccident has taken place when the bus driver in order to avoid any accident<br \/>\nswerved the bus towards right side (when the pedestrian suddenly tried to cross<br \/>\nthe road from right to left near Etturvattam and resultantly, the bus has gone<br \/>\nto the right side slope and dashed against a lorry which was standing in a<br \/>\nslanting position and capsized.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.It cannot be gainsaid that the maxim res loquitur applies if accident is<br \/>\nproved to have occurred due to the negligence of the driver and the presumption<br \/>\nof negligence can be inferred and the burden will be shifted on the driver to<br \/>\nshow that he was not negligent at the time of accident, in the considered<br \/>\nopinion of this Court. However, the maxim is not a rule of law. But this Court<br \/>\npoints out that &#8216;it is no more than a rule of evidence affecting onus. It is<br \/>\nbased on common sense, and its purpose is to enable justice to be done when the<br \/>\nfacts bearing on causation and on the care exercised by the defendant are at the<br \/>\nout set unknown to the plaintiff and are or ought to be within the knowledge of<br \/>\nthe defendant&#8217; as per decision of Lord Normand in Barkway V. South Wales<br \/>\nTransport Company Ltd., (1950) 1 All E.R. 392, 399. As a matter of fact, the res<br \/>\nipso loquitur is only a rule as to the way of evidence, from which negligence<br \/>\ncan be inferred.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.It is relevant to make a mention that the maxim res ipso loquitur comes<br \/>\ninto operative play (1) on proof of the happening of an unexplained occurrence;<br \/>\n(2) when the occurrence is one which would not have happened in the ordinary<br \/>\ncourse of things without negligence on the part of some one other than the<br \/>\nplaintiff; and (3)the circumstances point to the negligence in issue being that<br \/>\nof the defendant rather than that of any other person. The third ingredient is<br \/>\nnormally satisfied by showing that the instrument causing the damage has been in<br \/>\nthe Management and control of the defendant at the time of occurrence, but this<br \/>\nis not essential and necessary. In short, the &#8216;res&#8217; speaks because the facts<br \/>\nstand unexplained, and therefore, the natural and reasonable, not conjectural,<br \/>\ninference from the facts establishes that what has happened is reasonably to be<br \/>\nattributed to some act of negligence on the part of some one; i.e. some want of<br \/>\nreasonable care under the given circumstances. Admittedly, on the side of<br \/>\nappellant\/Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus TN-58-N-0299 Ramasamy has<br \/>\nnot been examined as witness before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.In the light of evidence of P.W.1\/claimant coupled with Ex.P.1-FIR and<br \/>\nEx.P.6-Plan and also applying the principle of Res Ipso Loquitur and bearing in<br \/>\nmind of the fact that the respondent\/claimant and others have sustained injuries<br \/>\narising out of the accident and one person died after entangling himself below<br \/>\nthe bus etc., this Court comes to the inevitable conclusion that in the instant<br \/>\ncase, the accident has taken place because of the fast speed, rash and negligent<br \/>\ndriving of the bus by its driver Ramasamy and that he is squarely responsible<br \/>\nfor the happening of occurrence and the point is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.In regard to the quantum of compensation to be awarded, it is pertinent<br \/>\nto point out that the respondent \/claimant in his claim petition has made a<br \/>\nclaim of Rs.4,56,000\/- towards compensation claiming different sums under<br \/>\ndifferent heads and restricting a sum of Rs.4,00,000\/- which runs as follows:<br \/>\n&#8220;Particulars of loss expenses<br \/>\nPart-I\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)Loss of earning from<br \/>\n   28.5.2000 to 31.8.2000\t\t: Rs.  22,500.00<\/p>\n<p>(b)Partial loss of earnings<br \/>\n   from- to- at the net rate of Rs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>   a day\/week\t\t\t\t:  -------\n\n(c)Transport to Hospital \t\t: Rs.   5,000.00\n\n(d)Extra Nourishment\t\t\t: Rs.  15,000.00\n\n(e)Damages to clothing and articles\t: Rs.   3,500.00\n \t\t\t\t\t\t(Watch worth Rs.1,800\/-\n\t\t\t\t\t      Raymond clothing worth\n\t\t\t\t\t\t Rs.1,700\/-)\n\n(f)Others\n\n1.Medical Expenses - Rs.60,000\/-\n2.Future Medical Expenses -\n  Rs.30,000\/-\n3.Dejection and Unhappiness caused\n  -Rs.20,000\/-\t\t\t\t: Rs.1,10,000.00\t\n\n\nPART-II\n\n(g)Compensation for pain and\n    suffering\t\t\t\t: Rs.  50,000.00\n\n(h)Compensation for continuing for\n   permanent disability if any\t\t: Rs.1,00,000.00\n\n(i)Compensation for the loss of\n   earning power\t\t\t: Rs.1,50,000.00\n\t\t\t\t\t  ----------------\n(j)Total\t\t\t\t  Rs.4,56,000.00\n\t\t\t\t\t  ----------------\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>* The petitioner hereby restricts his claim to Rs.4,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.In this connection, it is useful to refer to P.W.1\/claimant&#8217;s evidence<br \/>\nto the effect that initially he was admitted into the Sattur Government<br \/>\nHospital, where he has taken first aid treatment and later on the same day he<br \/>\nhas been admitted into the Getwell Hospital at Tirunelveli as an inpatient,<br \/>\nwhere he was given the first U slab treatment on 27.05.2000 and that he went to<br \/>\nTirunelveli by car from Sattur and from Tirunelveli he went to Madurai on<br \/>\n30.05.2000 and got himself admitted into the Madurai Apollo Hospital and on<br \/>\n31.05.2000  Dr.Muthuvel conducted a surgery on his right upper hand and fixed<br \/>\nthe plate and bone grafting was done and he remained as an inpatient till<br \/>\n05.06.2000 (for a week) and he took treatment as an outpatient and that<br \/>\nDr.Muthuvel Rajan Hospital on 10.06.2000, 24.06.2000, 26.08.2000 and he further<br \/>\ntook treatment under Dr.Mohan Doss Gandhi in Jayadev Hospital from 27.08.2000 to<br \/>\n10.09.2000 as an inpatient and till he is taking treatment and also he<br \/>\nundergoing physiotherapy training and that he was enrolled as an Advocate on<br \/>\n22.09.1993 and was practising in Sivagangai and Madurai District Courts and<br \/>\nprior to accident he was earning an income not less than Rs.7,500\/- per month<br \/>\nand at the time of accident his wife was 8 months pregnant and that he could not<br \/>\ndo any help to her properly and that he could not appear before Courts because<br \/>\nof the treatment he had undergone and because of the accident his avocation as<br \/>\nan Advocate had been affected and the earning capacity had been reduced and to<br \/>\nremove the plate in the upper portion  of the right hand, he requires a sum of<br \/>\nRs.30,000\/- for performing surgery.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.P.W.2-Dr.Ravichandaran in his evidence has stated that he examined<br \/>\nP.W.1\/claimant on 28.01.2003 and that the claimant after taking treatment at the<br \/>\nGovernment Sattur Hospital later went to Tirunelveli Getwell Hospital and took<br \/>\ntreatment and from there went to Madurai Apollo Hospital, where there 30.05.2000<br \/>\nto 05.06.2000 he was admitted as an inpatient and at the time of accident the<br \/>\nhumorous bone on left hand was smashed for which a surgery was performed and<br \/>\nscrew was fixed and later a bone grafting was performed on the claimant and that<br \/>\nthe said bone has malunited etc. and to remove the plate and the screw another<br \/>\nsurgery is to be performed on the claimant and the permanent disability<br \/>\nsustained by the claimant is assessed by him at 52% as per Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.26<br \/>\nis the certificate showing that an expense of Rs.30,000\/- will have to be<br \/>\nincurred by the claimant for performing another surgery and that the claimant<br \/>\nhas the difficulty to write for longer duration.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.Since the P.W.1\/claimant has suffered a partial permanent disability of<br \/>\n52% as per Ex.P.24-certificate, this Court grants a sum of Rs.52,000\/- as<br \/>\ncompensation in this regard. Towards pain and suffering, this Court grants a sum<br \/>\nof Rs.10,000\/-. Towards transportation expenses, this Court grants a sum of<br \/>\nRs.5,400\/- as per Ex.P.19. In lieu of an expense of Rs.350\/- incurred by the<br \/>\nrespondent\/claimant has seen from Ex.P.11 series (two in number), the first<br \/>\nrespondent\/claimant is granted a sum of Rs.350\/- in this regard. Since towards<br \/>\npurchase of medicines, the respondent\/claimant has incurred an expense of<br \/>\nRs.491.25 p as per Ex.P.12 series (three in number), this Court awards the said<br \/>\nsum of Rs.491.25 p. As seen from Ex.P.13-Hospital Bills series (four in number),<br \/>\nthe respondent\/claimant has incurred an expense of Rs.32,220\/- and therefore,<br \/>\nthis Court grants the said sum of Rs.32,220\/-. Since the claimant has incurred<br \/>\nan expense of Rs.7,170\/- towards hospital expense, this Court grants the said<br \/>\nsum of Rs.7,170\/-. Towards purchase of medicine, the respondent\/claimant has<br \/>\nspent a sum of Rs.4342.95 as per Ex.P.15 and therefore, this Court awards the<br \/>\nsaid sum of Rs.4,342.95. As per Ex.P.16 series (three in number) the<br \/>\nrespondent\/claimant has incurred a hospital expense of Rs.600\/- and therefore,<br \/>\nthis Court grants the said sum of Rs.600\/-. The respondent\/claimant has produced<br \/>\na hospital expense bill from Jayadev Hospital in and by which he has spent<br \/>\nRs.23,764\/- and therefore, this Court grants the said sum of Rs.23,764\/-. As per<br \/>\nEx.P.18-certificate dated 12.01.2002 the respondent\/claimant has incurred an<br \/>\nexpenditure of Rs.16,800\/- towards medical treatment and therefore, this Court<br \/>\ngrants the same. Thus, the respondent\/claimant in all granted a sum of Rs.85,738<br \/>\ntowards medical expense (as per Exs.P.11 to P.18).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.For removing the plate by way of surgery, the respondent\/claimant has<br \/>\nto incur an expense of Rs.30,000\/- as per medical certificate dated 04.02.2003<br \/>\nand therefore, this Court grants the said sum of Rs.30,000\/-. Towards loss of<br \/>\nincome, this Court grants a sum of Rs.25,000\/-. Towards nourishment expenses and<br \/>\nattendance expense etc., this Court grants a sum of Rs.4,862\/-. Thus this Court<br \/>\nawards a sum of Rs.2,13,000\/- as total compensation to the respondent\/claimant<br \/>\nfor the injuries and disability sustained by him arising out of the accident and<br \/>\nthis sum of Rs.2,13,000\/- is a fair, reasonable and prudent one considering the<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances of the case and therefore, this Court is not interfering<br \/>\nwith the award of Rs.2,13,000\/- granted by the Tribunal to the<br \/>\nrespondent\/claimant. The aforesaid amount of Rs.2,13,000\/- along with interest<br \/>\nat 9% per annum is directed to be paid by the appellant\/Transport Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.In C.M.P.No.2610 of 2004 on 05.03.2004 this Court has granted an order<br \/>\nof interim stay on condition that the appellant deposits the entire balance<br \/>\ncompensation amount including interest and costs to the credit of<br \/>\nM.A.C.T.O.P.No.31 of 2001 on the file of Sub Court, Sivagangai within a period<br \/>\nof eight weeks etc.<\/p>\n<p>\tIn fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is hereby<br \/>\ndismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the award<br \/>\ndated 30.06.2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, viz.,Sub Court,<br \/>\nSivagangai in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.31 of 2001 is affirmed for the reasons assigned by<br \/>\nthis Court in this appeal. It is open to the respondent\/claimant to receive the<br \/>\namount to which he is entitled to from the Tribunal by filing appropriate<br \/>\napplication as per Civil Rules of Practice in accordance with law. Connected<br \/>\nmiscellaneous petition is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sgl<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Additional District Judge,<br \/>\nFast Track Court,<br \/>\nThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,<br \/>\nVirdhunagar.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Managing Director vs D.Pratap on 13 October, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:13\/10\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.M.A.(MD)No.519 of 2004 and C.M.P.No.2610 of 2004 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division-I, Ltd., Madurai 625 016. .. Appellant Vs D.Pratap .. Respondent Prayer Appeal [&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-19045","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Managing Director vs D.Pratap on 13 October, 2008 - 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-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008\" \/>\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 D.Pratap on 13 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-18T22:13:15+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=\"16 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-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Managing Director vs D.Pratap on 13 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-18T22:13:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3117,\"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-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008\",\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs D.Pratap on 13 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-18T22:13:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs D.Pratap on 13 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"The Managing Director vs D.Pratap on 13 October, 2008 - 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-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Managing Director vs D.Pratap on 13 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-18T22:13:15+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Managing Director vs D.Pratap on 13 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-18T22:13:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008"},"wordCount":3117,"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-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008","name":"The Managing Director vs D.Pratap on 13 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-18T22:13:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-d-pratap-on-13-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Managing Director vs D.Pratap on 13 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/19045","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=19045"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19045\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19045"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19045"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19045"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}