{"id":199200,"date":"2010-03-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-07-09T13:25:55","modified_gmt":"2017-07-09T07:55:55","slug":"v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"V.Sornam vs Tamil Nadu State Transport … on 17 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
V.Sornam vs Tamil Nadu State Transport … on 17 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 17\/03\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN\n\nC.M.A(MD)No.1449 of 2004\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos. 1 and 2 of 2009\n\n\n1.  V.Sornam\n\n2.  V.Samuthirakani\n\n3.  V.Ramar\n\n4.  V.Kalarani\t\t\t\t    ...  Appellants\/Claimants\n\nvs\n\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation\n(Madurai Division.II) Limited,\nVannarpettai,\nTirunelveli - 627 003\nthrough its Managing Director. ...  Respondents\/Respondents\n\n(Second respondent remained ex parte and third respondent was exonerated before\nthe Tribunal)\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nPRAYER\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles\nAct, 1998 against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2003 made in\nM.C.O.P.No.1660 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal\n(Principal District Judge), Tirunelveli.\n\n!For Appellants  ... Mr.T.Selvakumaran\n^For Respondent  ... Mr.N.Asaithambi\n\n\t\t\t* * *\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1660 of 2001, on the file
\nof the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Tirunelveli,
\nclaiming a compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs.  They are the legal heirs of the
\ndeceased Mr.Velayutham, who died in the accident that took place on 13.11.2001,
\ncaused by the driver of the bus owned by the respondent\/corporation.  The
\ndetails of the accident are not necessary as the finding of the Tribunal that
\nthe driver of the respondent\/corporation was responsible for the accident was
\nnot questioned by the respondent\/corporation. The issue is relating to the
\nquantum of compensation that was awarded to the appellants.  In the order, dated
\n27.11.2008, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,96,000\/- as compensation
\nunder the following heads:\n<\/p>\n
\t1.  for loss of income         - Rs.1,84,800\/-\n\t2.  for loss of consortium\n         to the first appellant        - Rs.  10,000\/-\n\t3.  for funeral expenses       - Rs.   1,200\/-\n\t\t\t\t      ----------------\n\t\t\tTotal          - Rs.1,96,000\/-\n\t\t\t\t      ----------------\n\nThe appeal is filed seeking enhancement.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t2.  The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the Tribunal had
\ncommitted an error in taking 55 as the age of the deceased at the time of
\naccident.  The learned counsel for the appellants submits that since as per
\nEx.P5, the Post-mortem Certificate, the age of the deceased was noted as 50
\nyears, the same should have been taken as the age of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that
\nthe Tribunal has correctly taken the age of the deceased as 55 years based on
\nEx.P8. Ex.P8 is the correspondence between the employer under whom the deceased
\nwas employed and the Life Insurance Corporation of India, regarding the payment
\nof death benefits to the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.  I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the
\nrecords.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.  The deceased was employed in South India Mines and Minerals Industries
\nLimited, Sankar Nagar, Tirunelveli District.  Ex.P8 contains series of four
\nletters and those letters are (1) letter dated 13.12.2001 addressed by the said
\ncompany to the Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited (ii) letter dated
\n18.01.2002 addressed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited in reply
\nto the said company (iii) letter dated 22.01.2002 addressed by the said company
\nto the Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited and (iv) the form of
\ndischarge for payment of benefits under the policy issued by Life Insurance
\nCorporation of India Limited.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The letter dated 13.2.2001 of Life Insurance Corporation of India
\nLimited, is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
The South India Mines and Mineral Industries Limited,
\nSankar Nagar.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t      F.203\/660\/2001-2002
\nManager(P&Gs),
\nLife Insurance Corporation of India,
\nTirunelveli Divisional Office,
\n‘Jeevan Prakash’,
\nPunithavathiar Street,
\nPalayamkottai,
\nTIRUNEVELI –  627 002.\n<\/p>\n
\tSub: Settlement of Gratuity in respect of
\n          S.Velayutham – Expired on 13.11.2001.\n<\/p>\n
\tRer: Group Gratuity(Cash Accumulation)Scheme,
\n          File No.T001193
\n\t\t\t\t\t……..\n<\/p>\n
\tWe are to report that the following employee expired on 13.11.2001. Kindly
\narrange for payment of Gratuity to the fund at your earliest to enable the trust
\nto make the payment to the deceased employee’s family.\n<\/p>\n
\t1.  Name of the employee      : S.VELAYUTHAM\n\t\t\t\t\tS\/o.Sudalaimuthu\n\n\t2.  Serial No. in the list    : 10193\n\n\t3.  Date of birth             : 21.07.1946\n\n\t4.  Date of joining service   : 01.07.1982\n\n\t5.  Date of expiry            : 13.11.2001\n\n\t6.  No. of years of service   : 19 years\n\n\t7.  Last pay drawn(Basic+\n             D.A)\t\t      : Basic pay   : Rs.   68.830\n\t\t\t\t        D.A.        : Rs.  143.580\n\t\t\t\t\t\t     ............\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    :   212.410\n\t\t\t\t\t\t        per day\n\t8.  Gratuity payable \t\t: Rs.60,537\/-\n\n\t\t\t\t\tfor The South India Mines\n  \t\t\t\t        and Mineral Industries\n\t\t\t\t\tLimited.,\n\t\t\t\t\n                                       Executive Director.\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t7. The reply dated 18.01.2002 from Life Insurance Corporation of India
\nLimited to the said company is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t        LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
\n  \t          TIRUNELVELI DIVISIONAL OFFICE<\/p>\n
Telephone : 574729 \t\t\t\t” Jeevan Prakash”,
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  Punithavathiar Street,
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  Tiruneveli – 627 002.<\/p>\n
\nRef: P & G.S.\/File No.1193\n     Master Policy No.33086\t\t  Dated: 18.01.02\n\t\t\t\t\t  Registered Post.\n\nThe General Manager,\nSouth India Mines and Mineral\nIndustries Limited,\n315, Narayana Nagar,\nSankar Nagar 627 307.\n\n\nDear Sir\/s,\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tRef: Death Benefit- Refund of Group Gratuity Life Assurance Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
\tSri.  S.Velautham,                   M.No.\n\tWith reference to your letter dated         enclosing the Discharge Form,\n<\/pre>\n
we send herewith our Cheque No.140164, dated 19.01.2002 for Rs.70095\/-(Rupees
\nSeventy thousand and ninety five only) drawn on CB Palayamkottai Branch towards
\nthe settlement of the same.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\tKindly acknowledge receipt.          Yours faithfully,\n\n\tKindly return the discharge\n\tform duly signed and\n         witnessed.                       p.SR.\/Divisional Manager\n\nEncl: One Cheque and one DI\nCC to Accounts Department\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t8. The letter, dated 22.01.2002 of the company to the Life Insurance
\nCorporation of India Limited acknowledges the receipt of cheque  for
\nRs.7000.95\/-along with the letter, dated 18.01.2002 of Life Insurance
\nCorporation of India Limited , payable under Group Gratuity Life Assurance
\nScheme.  The form of discharge for payment of benefits is issued by the Life
\nInsurance Corporation of India Limited.  The aforesaid documents make it very
\nclear that the age of the deceased was 55 years at the time of accident as the
\ndate of birth of the deceased was 21.07.1946,while the date of accident was
\n13.11.2001.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.  Further P.W.2, Assistant Manager of South India Mines and Minerals
\nIndustries Limited, Tirunelveli deposed that the deceased had only three more
\nyears of service had he not died in the accident.  The following statement in
\nthe Chief examination  of P.W.2 is extracted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
                ” mth; 58 taJ tiu mth; vA;fs; epWtdj;jpy; gzpghpayhk;”\t<\/p>\n
In cross-examination of P.w.2 he stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
”nwe;J Bghd Btyhajk; vA;fsplk; mspj;Js;s gpwe;j Bjjp tpgug;go mth; nd;Dk; 3
\nMz;Lfs; kl;LBk vA;fs; epWtdj;jpy; gzpghpa naYk;.”<\/p>\n
\t10.  Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal
\ntaking the age of the deceased as 55 years at the time of accident.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.  Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
\nTribunal had committed an error in taking the monthly earnings of the deceased
\nas Rs.2100\/-. The learned counsel further submits that as per Ex.P6 to Ex.P8,
\nthe deceased was paid Rs.269.895\/- per day as his wages.  But, the Tribunal had
\ncommitted an error in not taking into account the wages as disclosed in Ex.P6 to
\nEx.P8, on the ground that it is not known whether the said amount of
\nRs.269.895\/- is the salary for a day or the salary for a month.  The learned
\ncounsel further  submits that Ex.P8 being the correspondence between the company
\nand the Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited, the Tribunal should have
\ntaken the salary as noted in Ex.P6 to Ex.P8.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent\/corporation
\nsubmits that since the salary register was not produced, the Tribunal was
\ncorrect in taking  Rs.2,100\/- as the salary of the deceased person and no fault
\ncould be found on the Tribunal for not taking Rs.269.895\/- as  daily wages of
\nthe deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.  I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the
\nrecords.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.  I am in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel
\nfor the appellants that while the Tribunal acted based on Ex.P8 in determining
\nthe age of the deceased at 55 years, the Tribunal is not correct in refusing to
\ntake the wages as disclosed in Ex.P8.  As per Ex.P8, the gratuity was paid based
\non the basic pay and Dearness Allowance paid to the deceased for his 19 years of
\nservice rendered with the company under the Group Gratuity Life Assurance
\nScheme.  Ex.P6 is the salary certificate.  As per Ex.P6, the details of the
\nsalary paid to the deceased is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
  THE SOUTH INDIA MINES&MINERAL INDUSTRIES LTD Grams:SIMMINDS
\n(FORMERLY AGRICULTURAL FARMS LIMITED     PHONE:0462 300344
\n(LIMESTONE-MINE OWNERS)\t                 FAX:0462 300113<\/p>\n
…………………………………..\n<\/p>\n
Regd Office:315, Narayana Nagar,Sankar   TNGSTNo. 5569913
\n                  Nagar,P.O\t\t  Dt: 1.4.1995
\nTalaiyuthu R.S.,Tirunelveli District      Our Ref.No.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t  627 357.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t  3rd April 2003<\/p>\n
\t\t     TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN\t<\/p>\n
\tThis is to certify that our employee late S.Velayutham,S\/o. Sudalaimuthu,
\nToken No.548, was drawing daily wages at the rate of Rs.269.895 per day and paid
\nmonthly, during October2001 as furnished below:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t  Rs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tBasic Pay\t\t\t\t 68.827\n                Dearness Allowance                       143.581\n                House Rent Allowance                      4.808\n\t\tSpecial Benefits                         52.679\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t -------\n\t\t\t\t\tTotal          269.895 per\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t     day\t\n\n<\/pre>\n
He has been in continuous service of our compny since 1.7.1982.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis certificate is issued for the purpose of claiming accident and other
\ndeath benefits of the deceased employee.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t For The South India Mines and
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMineral Industries Ltd.,<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExecutive Director.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.  Ex.P7 is the identity card given to the deceased and in the same also
\nappears the rate of wages paid to the deceased.  Ex.P8 is the correspondence
\nbetween the company and the Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited and the
\ndetails were already extracted above. Hence, it is very clear that the deceased
\nwas earning Rs.269.895\/- as daily wages. But, the Tribunal refused to take
\nRs.269.895\/- as the daily wages on the ground that  the Tribunal was not able to
\ncome to a conclusion as to whether the said amount of Rs.269.895\/- represents
\ndaily wages or monthly wages.  The following finding of the Tribunal  is
\nextracted hereunder in this regard:\n<\/p>\n
\tBkYk; k.rh.2 Mf  rPdpthrfk; vd;gth; rhl;rpahf tprhhpf;fgl;ljpy; mth; jdJ
\nrhl;rpaj;jpy; nwe;J BghdtUf;F tpgj;J fhyj;jpy’;U.269.89 igrh tUkhdk; vd;Wk;
\nmjw;F jhA;fs; bfhLj;j rhd;wpjH; k.rh.M6 vd;Wk; nwe;J Bghdthpd; milahs \\ml;il
\nk.rh.M7 vd;Wk;, jA;fs; epWtdj;jpw;Fk; vy;.Irpf;Fk; nilBaahd fojA;fspd; efy;fs;
\nk.rh.M.8 thpir vd;Wk; rhd;whtzA;fs; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sd. Bkw;fz;l
\nrhd;whtzA;fis ghh;;f;Fk;BghJ  nwe;J Bghdth; jpd Typahf Btiy ghh;j;J ehs; xd;Wf;F
\nmog;gil rk;gsk; 68.82 igrh vd;Wk; o.v 143.58 igrh vd;Wk;, tPl;L trjp mytd;!;
\n4.08 igrh vd;Wk; rpwg;g[ tHA;fy; 52.67 igrh vd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sjpy;mJ
\nkhjj;jpw;fh my;yJ ehs; x;d;Wf;fh vd;W Bkw;fz;l rhd;whtzA;fspy; bjspthf tpsf;fk;
\nvJt[k; ny;iy. ehs; Typahf tHA;fg;gLk; vd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sjpy; Bkw;fz;l
\ntpguA;’fis ghh;f;Fk;BghJ mJ ehs;Typahf bjhpatpy;iy. mth; rk;gsk; bgw;w fzf;F
\ng[j;jfA;fs; Bghd;w ek;gj;jFe;j MtzA;fs; vJt[k; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.  The aforesaid reasoning is not acceptable to me.  When the Tribunal
\nacted on the basis of Ex.P8 for determining the  age of the deceased at the time
\nof accident, the Tribunal should have also taken the wage details as found in
\nEx.P8.  Further, this document is between the company and the Life Insurance
\nCorporation of India Limited.  Furthermore, 5% of the earnings of the deceased
\nwas deducted towards the said scheme as per the evidence  of P.W.2. In this
\nregard, the evidence of P.W.2 is extracted hereunder.\n<\/p>\n
\t”vA;fs; epWtdj;jpy; gzp bra;j Btyhajk; vd;gtiu FUg; nd;Rud;;!;
\njpl;lj;jpy; Brh;e;J mtuJ tUkhdj;jpy; 5%%rjtPjk; tPjk; khjhkhjk; gpoj;J fl;o
\nnUe;Bjhk;. mth; nwe;j gpd;gmj;jpl;lj;jpd; fPH; mtUf;F mtuJ FLk;gj;jhUf;F fpilf;f
\nBtz;oa gzpf;bfhil bjhif Fwpj;J vA;fs; epWtdj;jpw;Fk; vy;Irpf;Fk; nilBaahd
\nfojA;fspd; rpuhf;;!; efy; k.rh.M.8 thpir.”<\/p>\n
\t17.  Therefore, I am of the view that the finding of the Tribunal in
\ntaking Rs.2100\/- as the monthly salaryof the deceased is erroneous.
\nAccordingly, this Court takes Rs.269.895\/- as the daily wages of the deceased.
\nFurther P.W.2 deposed that he would work for 25 days a month. Hence his monthly
\nearning works out to Rs.269.895×25=6747.375\/-. According to P.W.2, the deceased
\nwould have served  up to 58 years had he not died, i.e., he would retire only on
\n31.07.2004, as his date of birth is 21.07.1946. The appellants are entitled to
\nloss of income suffered by the claimants from 13.11.2001 to 31.07.2004.(2 years
\n8 months and 15 days) and hence, the total loss of income comes to
\nRs.2,29,966.425\/-. After 58 years, I like to take the same wages  as taken by
\nthe Tribunal at Rs.2100\/-as the monthly wages of the deceased and after
\ndeducting one third towards for his personal expenses, the loss of income
\nsuffered by the claimants is Rs.1400\/-p.m.- Annual loss is Rs.1400 x 12 =
\nRs.16,800\/-. To arrive at the loss of income for the rest of the period,
\nmultiplier ‘8’ is applied, instead of ’11’ used by the Tribunal, since loss of
\nincome for 2 years,8 months and 15 days were worked out. The loss of income for
\nthe rest of the period comes to Rs.1,34,400\/-(Rs.16,800 x 8).  Hence, the
\nappellant is entitled to Rs.2,29,966.425\/-+1,34,400\/-=3,64,366.425\/-as
\ncompensation towards loss of income.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.  Thirdly, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
\nTribunal should have award each a sum of Rs.10,000\/- other than the first
\nappellant towards loss of love and affection, as the first appellant alone  was
\nordered a sum of Rs.10,000\/- towards loss of consortium.  I am also of the view
\nthat the appellants other than the first appellant are entitled to Rs.10,000\/-
\neach towards loss of love and affection.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.  For the reasons stated above, the appellants are entitled to the
\nfollowing compensation:\n<\/p>\n
\t1.  for loss of income           - Rs. 3,64,366.425\n\t2.  for loss of consortium\n\t    to the first appellant       - Rs.   10,000.000\n\t3.  for loss of love and\n         affection to the appellants\n\t    2 to 4                       - Rs.   30,000.000\n\t4.  for funeral expenses         - Rs.    1,200.000\n\t\t\t\t\t    -------------------\n\t\t\t\ttotal    -     4,05,566.425\n\t\t\t\t\t    --------------------\n\n<\/pre>\n
The total compensation is rounded to Rs.4,05,566.425\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. After deducting the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal, the
\nappellants are entitled to balance award amount (Rs.4,05,566.425-
\n1,96,000=2,09.566.42\/- with the same rate of interest as ordered by the
\nTribunal, from the date of application till the date of realization  and the
\nrespondent is directed to deposit the balance to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1660
\nof 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District
\nJudge, Tirunelvel, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
\ncopy of this order and the appellants are permitted to withdraw the same, in the
\nratio as apportioned by the Tribunal earlier.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.  The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.  No
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
vsn<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
\n(Principal District Judge),
\nTirunelveli.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court V.Sornam vs Tamil Nadu State Transport … on 17 March, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17\/03\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN C.M.A(MD)No.1449 of 2004 and M.P.(MD)Nos. 1 and 2 of 2009 1. V.Sornam 2. V.Samuthirakani 3. V.Ramar 4. V.Kalarani … Appellants\/Claimants vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation […]<\/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-199200","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nV.Sornam vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 17 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Sornam vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 17 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-09T07:55:55+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Sornam vs Tamil Nadu State Transport … on 17 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-09T07:55:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2144,\"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\\\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010\",\"name\":\"V.Sornam vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 17 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-09T07:55:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Sornam vs Tamil Nadu State Transport … on 17 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"V.Sornam vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 17 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Sornam vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 17 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-09T07:55:55+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Sornam vs Tamil Nadu State Transport … on 17 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-09T07:55:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010"},"wordCount":2144,"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\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010","name":"V.Sornam vs Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 17 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-09T07:55:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sornam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-transport-on-17-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Sornam vs Tamil Nadu State Transport … on 17 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/199200","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=199200"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199200\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199200"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199200"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199200"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}