{"id":200227,"date":"2004-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004"},"modified":"2015-11-06T05:31:42","modified_gmt":"2015-11-06T00:01:42","slug":"m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004","title":{"rendered":"M.Ganeshmoorthy vs S.Kaliaperumal on 10 December, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M.Ganeshmoorthy vs S.Kaliaperumal on 10 December, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 10\/12\/2004 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM    \nand \nThe Honourable Mr.Justice AR.RAMALINGAM      \n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal No.746 of 1997\nand \nC.M.P.No.8261 of 1997  \n\n1. M.Ganeshmoorthy  \n2. The Branch Manager, \n   New India Assurance Company  \n   Limited, Karaikkal.                          ..Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nS.Kaliaperumal                                         ..Respondent\n\n\n        Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of  Motor  Vehicles\nAct, against the judgment and decrees dated 17.03.1997 in MCOP.No.8 of 1996 on  \nthe file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pondicherry at Karaikal.\n\n\n!For Appellants :  Mr.S.Jayasankar\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.R.Vasudevan  \n\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.,)
\n        The owner and insurer of the vehicle in question are the appellants in
\nthis appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   In  respect  of  grievous  injuries  sustained in a motor vehicle
\naccident that took place on  04.12.1994,  the  respondent  herein  \/  claimant
\nprayed for  a  compensation  of  Rs.3 lakhs.  Before the Tribunal, the injured
\nclaimant was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.T.Veeramuthu as P.W.2,  besides  marking
\nExs.A-1  to  A-15  and  on  the  side  of  the  owner and insurer, no oral and
\ndocumentary evidence was let in, in support of their defence.   The  Tribunal,
\nafter holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver
\nof the vehicle in question, passed an award for Rs.1,41,000\/= with interest at
\n12% per  annum  from  the date of petition till date of deposit.  Aggrieved by
\nthe same, the present appeal has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  Heard the learned counsel  for  the  appellants  as  well  as  the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   After  taking  us  through the award of the Tribunal, the learned
\ncounsel appearing for the  appellants  would  submit  that,  inasmuch  as  the
\npermanent  disability,  even  according  to  the  doctor,  is  41%,  grant  of
\nRs.1,08,000\/= under the head  ‘permanent  disability’  is  excessive  and  not
\nwarranted.  On going through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other documents,
\nnamely,  Exs.A-5  to A-15 as well as his profession, namely, fisherman, we are
\nunable to accept the said contention for the following reasons.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  It is  not  in  dispute  that  the  claimant  is  a  fisherman  by
\nprofession.   It  is seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that due to the accident,
\nhe sustained multiple injuries and fracture on  the  left  leg.    Immediately
\nafter  the  accident,  he was taken to Government Hospital, Karaikal and taken
\ntreatment as  in-patient  between  04.12.1994  and  23.12.199  4.     Accident
\nRegister, which has been marked as Ex.A-5, supports the above version.  Ex.A-6
\nis the  discharge  slip.   It is further seen that, since the injured claimant
\nhad continuous pain even after discharge from the hospital at Karaikal, he was
\nagain admitted in the same hospital and he was there  between  25.06.1995  and
\n30.06.1995.  Ex.A-11 is the slip proves the above version.  It is further seen
\nthat  even after discharge from the Government Hospital, Karaikal, the injured
\nhad treatment at Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry in the month of  August  1995  .
\nEx.A-7, identity card also proves the above version.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   It is the case of P.W.1 that, thereafter he had further treatment
\nfrom Government Hospital, Pondicherry between 16.09.1995 and 14.10.1995, again
\nbetween 13.05.1996 and 04.06.1996.  Exs.A-9 and A-10 prove the same.    It  is
\nfurther  seen  from  the  evidence  of the claimant that he had treatment from
\nPrimary Health Centre, Karaikalmedu  in  between  10.07.1996  and  17.07.1996.
\nApart  from  the  narration  of  nature of injuries and period of treatment by
\nP.W.1, Dr.T.Veeramuthu, who assessed his disability, was  examined  as  P.W.2.
\nIn  his  evidence,  P.W.2  has  stated  that he is a Orthopedic Surgeon and he
\nverified the medical reports of the Government Hospital, Karaikal,  where  the
\nclaimant had treatment, and after examining him, he assessed his disability to
\nthe  extent  of  41%,  which according to him, due to the fracture of left leg
\nbone.  Disability Certificate has been marked as Ex.A-13.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  It is the evidence of P.W.1 that as a fisherman,  he  was  earning
\nRs.150\/= per  day.  In order to prove that he is a fisherman by profession, he
\nmarked  Ex.A-14,  which  is  a  certificate  issued  by   Karaikal   Fishermen
\nCooperative Society.   Though the Tribunal has not accepted his entire version
\nregarding his income, taking note of the  fact  that  he  is  a  fisherman  by
\nprofession  and it would be possible for him to earn at least Rs.50\/= per day,
\nfixed his monthly income  at  Rs.1,500\/=.    Taking  note  of  the  period  of
\ntreatment at various stages, the Tribunal has granted Rs.18,000\/= towards loss
\nof income  for  the  period  of 12 months.  We already referred to the details
\nregarding treatment as in-patient, supported by discharge slip issued  by  the
\nrespective hospitals.    Hence,  the  grant  of  Rs.18,000\/= is reasonable and
\nacceptable.   The  Tribunal  has  also  granted  Rs.10,000\/=   towards   extra
\nnourishment and  Rs.5,000\/= towards transport charges.  Considering the length
\nof period of treatment and the fracture,  we  a  ccept  both  the  amounts  as
\nreasonable.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants,  as  stated earlier,
\ndisputed the amount of Rs.1,08,000\/= granted towards permanent disability.  In
\nthis regard, the learned counsel for the respondent \/  claimant  would  submit
\nthat in the light of disability to the extent of 41% and the evidence of P.W.1
\nand the doctor P.W.2, it would not be possible for him to earn the same amount
\nas he  was  getting  prior  to  the accident.  It is relevant to point out the
\nevidence of P.W.2.  In his evidence, he has stated that
\n“On 01.02.1996  I  issued  a  Physically  Handicapped  Certificate.      Total
\npercentage of  permanent  disability  was  41%.    During treatment, there was
\nnon-union of left arm bone.  For it, surgery was done at Government  Hospital,
\nPondicherry.   After  the  injury,  it is very difficult for the petitioner to
\nlift heavy articles like Kattamaram and net.  It will not be possible for  the
\npetitioner to row the Kattamaram when he goes for fishing…”.
\nThe  above evidence amply shows that it would be difficult for the claimant to
\noperate or lift heavy articles, like Kattamaram and without which,  he  cannot
\ndo fishing.    If we consider these aspects, we are of the view that the grant
\nof Rs.1,08,000\/=, though under the head of  permanent  disability,  cannot  be
\nsaid to  be  either  excessive or unreasonable.  As rightly pointed out by the
\nlearned counsel appearing for the respondent, the Tribunal has not granted any
\namount towards pain and suffering, mental agony, etc,.   Taking  note  of  all
\nthese  aspects  together,  we  are  of the view that the amount awarded by the
\nTribunal is just and reasonable and there is no valid ground for reduction  as
\nclaimed by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  Accordingly,  the  appeal  fails  and  the  same is dismissed.  No
\ncosts.  Consequently, connected CMP., is closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Internet:  Yes.\n<\/p>\n
gl<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
\nPondicherry at Karaikal.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Record Keeper,
\nV.R.Section,
\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           <\/p>\n
DATED:  1.12.2004  <\/p>\n
CORAM:\n<\/p>\n
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN
\nAND
\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA            <\/p>\n
W.A.No.797 of 1999  <\/p>\n
The State of Tamilnadu
\nrep. by its Secretary to Government
\nEnvironment & Forests Department
\nFort St. George, Chennai-9.                             .. Appellant<\/p>\n
Vs <\/p>\n
1. A.K.Raju<\/p>\n
2. The District Forest Officer
\n   (Dy. Conservator of Forests and
\n    Authorised Officer)
\n   Tamilnadu Forest Department
\n   Erode Division, Erode.<\/p>\n
3. The I Additional District and
\n   Sessions Judge, Periyar District
\n   Erode.                                                               .. Respondents
\n   (Respondents 2 and 3 not necessary
\n    parties and hence given up)<\/p>\n
PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order dated 25.2.1999 made in W.P.No.3648 of 1997 of His
\nHonourable Mr.Justice P.Sathasivam.\n<\/p>\n
                For Appellant           :       Mr.V.S.Sethuraman\n                                                        Spl. Government Pleader\n                For 1st Respondent      :       Mr.Goutham\n\nJUDGMENT    \n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) <\/p>\n
        This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
\nJudge dated 25.2.1999 made in W.P.No.3648 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
        2.1. Brief facts of the case, necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:\n<\/p>\n
        The first respondent is the registered owner of Tata Benz Lorry
\nbearing registration No.TN-38-Z-0327. On 14.9.1996 at 11.00 a.m., the
\nforest officers intercepted the lorry near  Bhavani Siriyampalayam
\ncheck post and found that a quantity of 100 Kgs. of Sandalwood was being
\ntransported.  A show cause notice,  in compliance of Section 49-B of
\nthe Tamil Nadu Forest Act, was issued to the owner of the lorry as
\nwell as to the persons who were travelling in the lorry calling for
\nexplanation on 26.9.1996.  The first respondent submitted his written
\nexplanation on 4.10.1996 denying knowledge of the alleged illicit
\ntransportation of Sandalwood.  Not satisfied with the explanation offered
\nby the first respondent, the second respondent, by proceedings dated 4
\n.10.1996, finding that it is not enough for the owner of the vehicle to say that he had no knowledge or connivance, and that
\nagent, namely the Driver have not proved that they have taken
\nreasonable and necessary precautions against such use of the vehicle for the
\nalleged offence, confiscated the said lorry, sandalwood weighing 100
\nKgs and other articles found in the lorry.\n<\/p>\n
        2.2. Even though an appeal was preferred against the said order
\ndated 4.10.1996 before the third respondent herein, viz., the appellate
\nauthority, by order dated 25.2.1997, confirmed the order of the
\nsecond respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        2.3. Hence, the first respondent preferred W.P.No.3648 of 1997 for
\nissue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second and third respondents herein relating to the
\ndated 4.10.1996 and 25.2.1997 respectively, to quash the same and to
\ndirect the respondents 2 and 3 to release the vehicle of the first
\nrespondent seized on 14.9.1996.\n<\/p>\n
        2.4. The Forest Department resisted the writ petition placing
\nreliance on Sections 49-A and 49-B of the Tamilnadu Forest Act and also a
\njudgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 4.12.1995 made in W.
\nA.No.1296 of 1995.\n<\/p>\n
        2.5. However, the learned Single Judge, placing reliance on
\nASSISTANT FOREST CONSERVATOR v. SHARAD RAMACHANDRA KALE,<\/a> (1998) 1 SCC 48,
\nallowed the writ petition by order dated 25.2.1999 and set aside the
\norders of the second and third respondents herein dated 4.10.1996 and 25
\n.2.1997 respectively.  Hence the present writ appeal by the Forest
\nDepartment.\n<\/p>\n
        3.1. Mr.V.S.Sethuraman, learned Special Government Pleader
\nappearing for the Forest Department brought to our notice that the ratio laid down in ASSISTANT FOREST CONSERVATOR v. SHARAD<\/a>
\nreferred supra, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
\npresent case, for the reason that in the said decision, the order of
\nconfiscation was set aside as the Forest Department relied upon
\nSection 52 of the Indian Forest Act, a reading of which would clearly
\nreveal that no liability is fastened on the owner of the vehicle to
\ndischarge his burden.\n<\/p>\n
        3.2. On the other hand, Mr.V.S.Sethuraman, learned Special
\nGovernment Pleader, inviting our attention to Sections 49-A and 49-B of the
\nTamilnadu Forest Act submits that under the provisions of the
\nTamilnadu Forest Act, the authorities concerned are empowered to confiscate
\nany tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in
\ncommitting such offence, vide Section 49-A(1) of the Tamilnadu Forest Act,
\nirrespective of the fact whether or not a prosecution is instituted for
\nthe commission of such forest offence.\n<\/p>\n
        4. Per contra, Mr.Goutham, learned counsel for the first respondent submits that no criminal action was initiated aga
\nrespondent, viz., the owner of the vehicle, and even though criminal
\naction was initiated against the driver of the lorry, the same resulted
\nin acquittal and therefore, the confiscation is bad in law inasmuch as in his representation dated 4.10.1996, the first respo
\ndenied knowledge of the alleged transportation of sandalwood.\n<\/p>\n
        5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of both
\nsides.\n<\/p>\n
        6. At this juncture it is apt to extract the relevant portions of
\nSections 49-A and 49-B of the Tamilnadu Forest Act and Section 52 of
\nthe Indian Forest Act, which read as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Section: 49-A of the Tamilnadu Forest Act  Confiscation by forest
\nofficers in certain cases:\n<\/p>\n
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions
\nof this Chapter or in any other law for the time being in force, where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in
\nany scheduled timber which is the property of the Government, the
\nofficer seizing the property under sub-section (1) of Section 41 shall,
\nwithout any unreasonable delay, produce it together with all tools,
\nropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing such
\noffence, before an office not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the Government in this beha
\nthe authorised officer).\n<\/p>\n
(2) Where the authorised officer himself seizes under sub-section (1) of section 41, any scheduled timber which is the proper
\nGovernment or where any such property is produced before the authorised officer under sub-section (1) and he is satisfied tha
\noffence has been committed in respect of such property, such authorised
\nofficer may, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the
\ncommission of such forest offence, order confiscation of the property so
\nseized together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and
\ncattle used in committing such offence.\n<\/p>\n
(3)(a) Where the authorised officer after passing an order of
\nconfiscation under sub-section (2) is of the opinion that it is expedient
\nin the public interest so to do, he may order the confiscated property or any part thereof to be sold by public auction.\n<\/p>\n
(b) Where any confiscated property is sold as aforesaid, the proceed thereof after deduction of the expenses of any such auct
\nconfiscation made under this section is set aside or annulled by an order
\nunder section 49-C or section 49-D, be paid to the owner thereof or
\nto the person from whom it was seized as may be specified in such
\norder.”\n<\/p>\n
“Section: 49-B of the Tamilnadu Forest Act  Issue of show cause
\nnotice before confiscation under Section 49-A:-\n<\/p>\n
(1) No order confiscating any scheduled timber, or tools, ropes,
\nchains, boats, vehicles or cattle shall be made under Section 49-A
\nexcept after notice in writing to the person from whom it is seized
\ninforming him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate it and
\nconsidering his objections if any:\n<\/p>\n
       Provided that no order confiscating a motor vehicle shall be
\nmade except after giving notice in writing to the registered owner
\nthereof, if, in the opinion of the authorised officer, it is
\npracticable to do so and considering his objections if any.
\n(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1) no order
\nconfiscating any tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle shall be
\nmade under Section 49-A if the owner of the tool, rope, chain, boat,
\nvehicle or cattle proves to the satisfaction of the authorised
\nofficer that it was used in carrying scheduled timber without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if
\nperson in charge of the tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle and
\nthat each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions
\nagainst such use.”\n<\/p>\n
“Section:52 of the Indian Forest Act -Seizure of property liable to
\nconfiscation:\n<\/p>\n
        (1) When there is reason to believe that a forest-offence has been
\ncommitted in respect of any forest-produce, such produce, together
\nwith all tools, boats, carts or cattle used in committing any such
\noffence, may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) Every officer seizing any property under this sections shall
\nplace on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so
\nseized, and shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure to
\nthe Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of
\nwhich the seizure has been made.\n<\/p>\n
        Provided that, when the forest-produce with respect to which such
\noffence is believed to have been committed is the property of
\nGovernment, and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the
\nofficer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to his
\nofficial superior.”\n<\/p>\n
        7.1. A bare reading of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act referred to above and Sections 49-A and 49-B of the Tamiln
\nshows that they are quite distinct in their parameters.\n<\/p>\n
        7.2. Section 49-A of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, which was
\nintroduced by Tamil Nadu Act 44 of 1992, empowers the Authorised Forest
\nOfficer to confiscate vehicle used in the commission of forest
\noffence and Section 49-B of the Tamilnadu Forest Act relates to the
\nprocedure to be followed.  Section 49-B(1) of the Tamilnadu Forest Act
\nenvisages notice to the person from whom the vehicle has been seized and
\nthe procedure lays down issuance of notice to the registered owner of
\nthe vehicle.  Section 49-B(2) of the Tamilnadu Forest Act envisages       that no order of confiscation should be passed if i
\nto the satisfaction of the Authorised Officer that the vehicle was
\nused in carrying scheduled timber without the knowledge and connivance
\nof the owner himself, his agent, if any and the person in charge of
\nthe vehicle and further each of them had taken all reasonable and
\nnecessary precautions against such use.\n<\/p>\n
        7.3. A comparison of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act and
\nSections 49-A and 49-B of the Tamilnadu Forest Act, makes it clear that
\nwhile a burden is fastened on the owner of the vehicle to prove that he
\nhad no knowledge of using the vehicle for the impugned forest offence and also to prove that he, his agent, if any, and the p
\ncharge of the vehicle have taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use of the vehicle for committing the
\noffence,  no such liability is fastened on the owner of the vehicle to
\ndischarge his burden under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act.\n<\/p>\n
        8. The procedures contained under Sections 49-A and 49-B  of the
\nTamilnadu Forest Act have been construed by a Division Bench of this
\nCourt in Writ Appeal No.1296\/1995 dated 4.12.1995. In the said case,
\nthe Forest Officer had       passed an order of confiscation which was
\nset aside by the Appellate Authority on the ground that at the time
\nof commission of the offence, the owner of the vehicle was in the
\nhospital attending to his son and was not aware of the illegal
\ntransportation of timber.  After referring the provisions contained, it was
\nobserved thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“The latter portion of the proviso places burden upon the owner of
\nthe vehicle.  It is not enough for the owner of the vehicle to prove
\nthat the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance.  He is
\nalso further required to prove that the agent or the driver under
\nwhose possession, the vehicle was being kept, had taken all reasonable
\nand necessary precautions against such use.  In the instant case, it
\nis not in dispute that the vehicle was seized when it was transporting illegally sandalwood.  In such cases the aforesaid pro
\ninto operation.  The burden shifts on the owner of the vehicle to prove
\nby convincing evidence that not only he had no knowledge of or had
\nnot connived with the use of the vehicle for illegal purpose, but his
\nagent or the person in charge of the vehicle had taken all the
\nreasonable and necessary precautions against such use.  The owner has not
\nadduced any evidence to show that the driver of the vehicle took
\nnecessary and reasonable precautions to prevent the use of the vehicle for
\nillegal transporting the  sandalwood.  The fact that the driver was
\nin the custody of the Police, did not in any way prevent the owner to
\nexamine him and to adduce any other evidence to prove that reasonable and necessary precautions were taken by the person in c
\nvehicle.  The object of the proviso is to ensure that the owner of
\nthe vehicle does not escape by merely pointing out that he had no
\nknowledge.  He being the owner of the vehicle, it is his responsibility to ensure that not only he himself had taken care to
\nvehicle was not used for any unauthorised purpose, but       also the
\nperson placed in charge of the vehicle did not use the vehicle or allowed it to be used or connived at use for such purpose.
\nof law requires to be scrupulously observed in order to prevent the
\nsmuggling of sandalwood.  Therefore, we are of the view that the
\nPrescribed Authority and the learned single Judge have not taken into
\nconsideration the true and correct scope and ambit of the proviso to
\nSection 49-B of the Act.  That being so, the order of the Prescribed       Authority cannot be sustained.  Consequently, the
\nsingle Judge has to be set aside.”\n<\/p>\n
        9. In the instant case, the second respondent as well as the third
\nrespondent, have concurrently held that the first respondent, viz.,
\nthe owner of the vehicle, had not discharged his burden to prove by
\nconvincing evidence that not only he had no knowledge of or had not
\nconnived with the use of the vehicle for illegal purpose, but his agent
\nor the person in charge of the vehicle had also taken all the
\nreasonable and necessary precautions against such use.  The owner has not
\nadduced any evidence to show that the driver of the vehicle took
\nnecessary and reasonable precautions to prevent the use of the vehicle for
\nillegally transporting the  sandalwood.  Hence, finding it difficult
\nto follow the decision in  ASSISTANT FOREST CONSERVATOR v. SHARAD
\nRAMACHANDRA KALE,<\/a> referred surpa, and interfere with the orders of the
\nsecond and third respondent dated 4.10.1996 and 25.2.1997 respectively, we allow this writ appeal and set aside the order of
\nsingle Judge dated 25.2.1999 made in W.P.No.3648 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
        In the result, this writ appeal is allowed.  No costs.<\/p>\n
\n\n(P.D.D.J.)(F.M.I.K.J.)\n1.12.2004 \nIndex           :       Yes\/No\nInternet        :       Yes\/No\n\nsasi\n\nTo:\n\n1. The State of Tamilnadu\n   rep. by its Secretary to Government\n   Environment & Forests Department \n   Fort St. George, Chennai-9.\n\n2. The District Forest Officer\n   (Dy. Conservator of Forests and\n    Authorised Officer)\n   Tamilnadu Forest Department \n   Erode Division, Erode.\n\n3. The I Additional District and\n   Sessions Judge, Periyar District\n   Erode.\nP.D.DINAKARAN,J.   \nAND  \nF.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.    \n\n[sasi]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nW.A.No.797 of 1999  \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n1.12.2004 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M.Ganeshmoorthy vs S.Kaliaperumal on 10 December, 2004 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 10\/12\/2004 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Honourable Mr.Justice AR.RAMALINGAM Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.746 of 1997 and C.M.P.No.8261 of 1997 1. M.Ganeshmoorthy 2. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Karaikkal. ..Appellant -Vs- […]<\/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-200227","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.Ganeshmoorthy vs S.Kaliaperumal on 10 December, 2004 - 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\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Ganeshmoorthy vs S.Kaliaperumal on 10 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-06T00:01:42+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Ganeshmoorthy vs S.Kaliaperumal on 10 December, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-06T00:01:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3420,\"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\\\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004\",\"name\":\"M.Ganeshmoorthy vs S.Kaliaperumal on 10 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-06T00:01:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Ganeshmoorthy vs S.Kaliaperumal on 10 December, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"M.Ganeshmoorthy vs S.Kaliaperumal on 10 December, 2004 - 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\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Ganeshmoorthy vs S.Kaliaperumal on 10 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-06T00:01:42+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Ganeshmoorthy vs S.Kaliaperumal on 10 December, 2004","datePublished":"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-06T00:01:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004"},"wordCount":3420,"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\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004","name":"M.Ganeshmoorthy vs S.Kaliaperumal on 10 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-06T00:01:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganeshmoorthy-vs-s-kaliaperumal-on-10-december-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Ganeshmoorthy vs S.Kaliaperumal on 10 December, 2004"}]},{"@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\/200227","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=200227"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200227\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}