{"id":222695,"date":"2010-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-28T20:08:35","modified_gmt":"2018-07-28T14:38:35","slug":"shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shakiela George vs K. Sathy on 18 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Shakiela George vs K. Sathy on 18 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMACA.No. 477 of 2004()\n\n\n1. SHAKIELA GEORGE, W\/O. THE LATE K. GEORGE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. ANJALI RACHEL GEORGE,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K. SATHY, (OWNER OF TELCO LORRY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. NARAYANAN, (DRIVING LICENCE\n\n3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.CHACKO GEORGE (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.LIJU. M.P\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :18\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
            PIUS C KURIAKOSE & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
\n                    M.A.C.A. NO. 477 & 479 OF 2004
\n                      = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
\n         DATED THIS, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2010.\n<\/p>\n
                       COMMON J U D G M E N T
\nGopinathan, J.\n<\/p>\n
      These appeals are preferred by the petitioners in O.P. (MV) 243 and<\/p>\n
244 of 1996 on the file of the        Additional Motor Accidents Claims<\/p>\n
Tribunal, Ernakulam. The above two original petitions along with another<\/p>\n
petition – O.P. (MV) 242 of 1996 were enquired together by the Tribunal<\/p>\n
below and by a common award dated 23.7.2003, all those petitions were<\/p>\n
disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the original petitions are as<\/p>\n
follows:      On 24.3.1995, at 8.30 P.M. at Chuvattupadam along the<\/p>\n
Trichur-Vadakkancherry road, a lorry bearing Registration No. TNR 5769,<\/p>\n
owned, driven and insured by Respondents 1 to 3 respectively, hit against a<\/p>\n
car bearing Registration No. TMG 2615 driven by late Viswambaran and as<\/p>\n
a result, Viswambaran and two passengers, namely Abraham Philip and<\/p>\n
George Plavelil sustained severe injuries to which all the three succumbed.<\/p>\n
The appellants in M.A.C.A. 477\/2004 are the legal heirs of deceased<\/p>\n
George Plavelil. The appellants in the other appeal are the legal heirs of<\/p>\n
Abraham Philip. They, in their separate petitions, O.P. 243 of 1996 and<\/p>\n
O.P. 244 of 1996 before the Tribunal below, contended that the accident<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. NOS. 477 & 479\/2004
\n                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the<\/p>\n
second respondent and hence all the respondents are liable to compensate<\/p>\n
them.    In O.P. 243\/1996 a sum of Rs. 30,75,000\/- was claimed as<\/p>\n
compensation. In the other petition, a sum of Rs. 31,71,000\/- was claimed<\/p>\n
as compensation.\n<\/p>\n
      3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte. The third respondent,<\/p>\n
though admitted the insurance liability, contended that the accident occurred<\/p>\n
because of the negligent driving of the car by late Viswambaran and hence<\/p>\n
the third respondent is not liable to compensate the appellants. The third<\/p>\n
respondent also contended that the claim made is exorbitant. The Tribunal<\/p>\n
enquired all the three petitions jointly and evidence was recorded in O.P.<\/p>\n
(MV) 244 of 1996. The first appellant in M.A.C.A. 479\/2004 was examined<\/p>\n
as PW.1. The first appellant in the other appeal was examined as PW.2.<\/p>\n
One of the legal heirs of Viswambaran was examined as PW.3. Exts.A1 to<\/p>\n
A16 were also marked. The contesting respondent did not adduce any oral<\/p>\n
or documentary evidence. The Tribunal below, on appraisal of the evidence<\/p>\n
on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 7,78,500\/- in O.P.(MV) 244 of 1996. In<\/p>\n
O.P. 243 of 1996, a sum of Rs. 8,98,500\/ was awarded. Aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
inadequacy of the compensation awarded, these appeals were preferred.<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. NOS. 477 & 479\/2004
\n                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
       4. Sri. H. Ramanan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants<\/p>\n
submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below for loss of<\/p>\n
dependency in both the cases is very low and sought for interference and<\/p>\n
enhancement. On the same time, the learned counsel conceded that the<\/p>\n
compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other heads in both the cases are<\/p>\n
just and reasonable.\n<\/p>\n
       5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent<\/p>\n
didn’t dispute the liability to compensate. According to the learned counsel,<\/p>\n
the compensation awarded in both the cases are just and reasonable.<\/p>\n
       6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
appellants, we are examining the adequacy of compensation for loss of<\/p>\n
dependency alone.      In M.A.C.A. 477 of 2004, it was revealed by the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW.2 and by Exts.A12 and A13 that deceased George Plavelil,<\/p>\n
on the date of accident was employed as General Manager, M\/s. Kerala<\/p>\n
Rubber and Reclaims Limited., Ernakulam and was drawing a salary of<\/p>\n
Rs.3,200\/-, D.A. 600, variable D.D. of Rs. 1,543.80, House Rent Allowance<\/p>\n
Rs. 500\/- and conveyance allowance of Rs. 600\/-. In addition to that, he<\/p>\n
was    the director of two other companies by name M\/s. Nelluparayil<\/p>\n
Rubbers and M\/s. Ryas Rubber Company at Kalamassery and as director of<\/p>\n
the Company as evidenced by Ext.A13, he was drawing a salary of Rs.<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. NOS. 477 & 479\/2004
\n                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
2,000\/-. If Exts. A12 and A13 are taken together, the deceased was having a<\/p>\n
monthly salary of Rs. 8,443\/- whereas the Tribunal below had calculated<\/p>\n
only Rs. 7,000\/- and from that a sum of Rs. 2,000\/- was deducted towards<\/p>\n
personal expenses and Rs. 5,000\/- was capitalized for a period of 14 years<\/p>\n
and thus, the compensation for loss of dependacy was determined at Rs.<\/p>\n
8,40,000\/-. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal<\/p>\n
below went wrong in limiting the salary of the deceased at Rs. 7,000\/- and<\/p>\n
that taking into account that the deceased was aged below 40 years, the<\/p>\n
income should have been capitalized for a period of 15 years. We find merit<\/p>\n
in the submission. Going by Exts.A12 and A13, the admissibility of which<\/p>\n
was not disputed, we find that as submitted by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, the total monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 8,443\/- of which<\/p>\n
Rs. 600\/- is towards conveyance allowance. We find that the conveyance<\/p>\n
allowance cannot be accounted to determine the loss of dependancy and that<\/p>\n
for determining the loss of dependency, we find that a sum of Rs. 7,843\/- is<\/p>\n
to be taken as the salary of the deceased.       In Sarla Varma v. Delhi<\/p>\n
Transport Corporation (2010 (2) KLT 802 SC) the Apex Court had held<\/p>\n
that the second schedule attached to the amended Motor Vehicles Act is not<\/p>\n
correct and to determine the compensation of a person aged between 36 –<\/p>\n
40 years, the multiple shall be 15 years.    Admittedly, the deceased was<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. NOS. 477 & 479\/2004
\n                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
below 40 years.      Therefore, the monthly loss of dependency is to be<\/p>\n
calculated for 15 years. Taking into account of the number of dependency,<\/p>\n
we find that one third of the monthly salary of Rs.7,843\/- is to be deducted<\/p>\n
towards personal expenses and the balance Rs. 5,229\/- shall be capitalized<\/p>\n
for a period of 15 years to determine the compensation for loss of<\/p>\n
dependency. If calculated so, it would come to Rs.9,41,220\/- (5,229 x 12 x<\/p>\n
15).    Therefore, we find that in M.A.C.A. 477\/2004, the appellants are<\/p>\n
entitled to a further sum of Rs.1,01,220\/- towards compensation for loss of<\/p>\n
dependency.\n<\/p>\n
       7.  In M.A.C.A. 479 of 2004 also, the Tribunal had committed<\/p>\n
identical error. Deceased Abraham Philip was employed as the Managing<\/p>\n
Director of    the Kerala Rubber and Reclaims Ltd. As per Ext.A8, the<\/p>\n
statement of calculation of remuneration, he had been drawing a sum of Rs.<\/p>\n
9,990\/- per month. In addition to that, as director of Ryas Rubber Private<\/p>\n
Ltd. the deceased was drawing a sum of Rs. 2,000\/ and thus, the monthly<\/p>\n
salary was stated as Rs. 11,990\/-. The monthly salary certified is not<\/p>\n
disputed. The learned standing counsel for the third respondent contended<\/p>\n
that the income of the deceased would have been subjected to income tax<\/p>\n
and no material is produced to show as to what exactly was the net income,<\/p>\n
after deducting the tax. The learned counsel for the appellant do concede<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. NOS. 477 & 479\/2004
\n                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
that the amount certified in Ext.A8 would be subjected to income tax and<\/p>\n
regarding the tax payable, no document was produced. Hence we are<\/p>\n
constrained to have a guess work to determine the net income.<\/p>\n
      8. As regards late Abraham Philip, there are four dependents. If the<\/p>\n
principle laid down in Sarla Varma’s case (supra) is applied, one fourth of<\/p>\n
the salary alone can be deducted towards personal expenses and the rest is<\/p>\n
to be capitalized for determining the compensation for dependency. Late<\/p>\n
Abraham Philip was aged 46. So, the multiple to be applied as per the<\/p>\n
decision of    the Apex Court in Sarla Varma’s case (supra) shall be 13.<\/p>\n
Instead of that, the Tribunal below has taken a multiple of 12. So also, the<\/p>\n
salary of the deceased was roughly determined at Rs. 7,000\/-, out of which<\/p>\n
Rs. 2,000\/ was deducted as personal expenses. We find that a rectification<\/p>\n
is to be made regarding the multiplier and multiplicand, but subject to<\/p>\n
some guess work regarding the tax payable. If 1\/4th of the salary of the<\/p>\n
deceased is deducted, the balance amount would come to Rs.7,491\/-. In the<\/p>\n
absence of any evidence regarding the tax payable, we find that the monthly<\/p>\n
loss of dependency can be determined at Rs.7,000\/- and when multiplied<\/p>\n
for   13 years, it would come to Rs.10,92,000\/- (7000x12x13).           The<\/p>\n
Tribunal had already awarded a sum of Rs.7,20,000\/- towards loss of<\/p>\n
dependency. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to an enhanced sum of<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A. NOS. 477 & 479\/2004
\n                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs. 3,72,000\/-. The appeals are liable to be allowed to that extent.<\/p>\n
        In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part. In M.A.C.A.<\/p>\n
477\/2004 the appellants are entitled to a further sum of Rs.1,01,220\/-<\/p>\n
towards loss of dependency in addition to the amount awarded by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal. In M.A.C.A. 479\/2004, we find that the appellants are entitled to<\/p>\n
a further   amount of Rs.3,72,000\/- towards loss of dependency.         The<\/p>\n
appellants in M.A.C.A. 479\/2004 are entitled to               apportion the<\/p>\n
compensation amount in equal moiety. The appellants are also entitled to<\/p>\n
future interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till payment or<\/p>\n
deposit before the Tribunal for the enhanced amount.<\/p>\n
                                                      PIUS C KURIAKOSE,
\n                                                                    (JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                                       P.S. GOPINATHAN,
\n                                                                    (JUDGE)
\nknc\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Shakiela George vs K. Sathy on 18 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MACA.No. 477 of 2004() 1. SHAKIELA GEORGE, W\/O. THE LATE K. GEORGE … Petitioner 2. ANJALI RACHEL GEORGE, Vs 1. K. SATHY, (OWNER OF TELCO LORRY … Respondent 2. NARAYANAN, (DRIVING LICENCE 3. UNITED INDIA […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-222695","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShakiela George vs K. Sathy on 18 November, 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\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shakiela George vs K. Sathy on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-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=\"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-28T14:38:35+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shakiela George vs K. Sathy on 18 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-28T14:38:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1564,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Shakiela George vs K. Sathy on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-28T14:38:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shakiela George vs K. Sathy on 18 November, 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":"Shakiela George vs K. Sathy on 18 November, 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\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shakiela George vs K. Sathy on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-28T14:38:35+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shakiela George vs K. Sathy on 18 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-28T14:38:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010"},"wordCount":1564,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010","name":"Shakiela George vs K. Sathy on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-28T14:38:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakiela-george-vs-k-sathy-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shakiela George vs K. Sathy on 18 November, 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\/222695","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=222695"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222695\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222695"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222695"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222695"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}