{"id":230196,"date":"2009-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009"},"modified":"2015-06-28T12:55:59","modified_gmt":"2015-06-28T07:25:59","slug":"bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Bijoy Aged 28 vs Mathew Jose on 13 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bijoy Aged 28 vs Mathew Jose on 13 November, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMACA.No. 1480 of 2007(Y)\n\n\n1. BIJOY AGED 28,S\/O.CHANDRAN PARAMBIKADAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MATHEW JOSE, VETTIKOMBIL HOUSE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. JOPHY MATHEW,S\/O. MATHEW.DO...DO...\n\n3. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE\n\n4. E.M.SASIDHARAN S\/O. EDATHADAN MADHAVAN,\n\n5. THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE VO LTD\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.N.MANOJ\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :13\/11\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                               P.R. RAMAN &amp;\n                P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.\n                   -----------------------------------------------\n                          M.A.C.A. No. 1480 of 2007\n                      ---------------------------------------------\n               Dated, this the 13th day of November, 2009\n\n\n                                 J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The appeal arises from the Award passed by the MACT, Irinjalakuda in<\/p>\n<p>OP (MV) No. 918\/2001, which was preferred by the appellant\/claimant<\/p>\n<p>seeking compensation in respect of the injuries sustained in the accident on<\/p>\n<p>15.08.2000. The appellant\/claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider on the<\/p>\n<p>motor cycle from Athirappilly to Chalakudy on 15.08.2000 at about 5.15 p.m.<\/p>\n<p>When the motor cycle reached at Konnakuzhi, a car bearing No. PY\/01 3141<\/p>\n<p>coming from the opposite direction dashed against the motor cycle causing<\/p>\n<p>serious injuries, which led to the claim.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.     The claim petition was originally preferred against the owner,<\/p>\n<p>driver and Insurer of the car. Subsequently, taking note of the contention<\/p>\n<p>raised from the part of the Insurer of the car, as to non joinder of necessary<\/p>\n<p>parties, the owner-cum-driver and Insurer of the scooter were also brought in<\/p>\n<p>the party array. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 to PW4,<\/p>\n<p>documents produced and marked as Exts.A1 to A11 from the part of the<\/p>\n<p>claimant and Ext.B1 copy of the Policy produced from the part of the insurer.<\/p>\n<p>After analyzing the pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal arrived at<\/p>\n<p>a clear finding that the accident occurred only because of the negligence on<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">MACA No. 1480 of 2007               2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the part of the driver of the car.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.     After taking note of the nature and extent of injuries sustained<\/p>\n<p>and the consequences resulted, the Tribunal awarded various amounts<\/p>\n<p>under the permissible heads fixing the total compensation payable at<\/p>\n<p>Rs.2,27,181\/- which is inclusive of a sum of Rs.1,21,581\/- towards the<\/p>\n<p>medical expenses as well. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that<\/p>\n<p>the amount awarded by the Tribunal, particularly towards the permanent<\/p>\n<p>disability is abysmally low; for the reason that, despite the certified<\/p>\n<p>permanent disability of 25%, and the oral testimony of the Doctor who was<\/p>\n<p>examined as PW2, only an extent of 12% was reckoned by the Tribunal.<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel also refers to the serious nature of disfiguration caused by<\/p>\n<p>the accident, by producing some photograph along with I.A.1750\/2007 and<\/p>\n<p>states that absolutely no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal under<\/p>\n<p>this head.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.     The compensation for the permanent disability has been<\/p>\n<p>awarded by the Tribunal reckoning a sum of Rs.2,500\/- as the monthly<\/p>\n<p>income and adopting the multiplier as 17, taking note of the age of claimant<\/p>\n<p>as 22 years at the time of accident; thus granting Rs.61,200\/- under this<\/p>\n<p>head.     Considering the seriousness of the injuries sustained, the<\/p>\n<p>circumstance under which the percentage of disability certified as per<\/p>\n<p>Ext.A10 was brought down from 25% to 12%, despite examining the Doctor<\/p>\n<p>as PW2, is not discernible from the Award, when shortening of the leg by 2<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">MACA No. 1480 of 2007                  3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>inches is held as proven. On going through the facts and figures, we find<\/p>\n<p>that fixation of permanent disability as 12% is much on the lower side and we<\/p>\n<p>find it fit, just and proper to have the same enhanced to 18%, weighing the<\/p>\n<p>evidence as a whole. On re-working the compensation payable towards the<\/p>\n<p>permanent disability reckoning the figures as above, the appellant will be<\/p>\n<p>entitled to get a further sum of Rs.30,600\/-. We also find it fit and proper to<\/p>\n<p>award a sum of Rs.5,000\/- as sought for by the appellant\/claimant, in respect<\/p>\n<p>of the &#8216;disfiguration&#8217; caused to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>       5.      In the result, we grant a further sum of Rs.35,600\/- towards the<\/p>\n<p>additional compensation payable in respect of the injuries sustained in the<\/p>\n<p>accident.      The amounts under all other heads appear to be very much<\/p>\n<p>reasonable and adequate. We hereby direct the 3rd respondent Insurance<\/p>\n<p>Company to deposit the above sum of Rs.35,600\/- with interest at the rate of<\/p>\n<p>7% from the date of application till the date of payment, as expeditiously as<\/p>\n<p>possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of<\/p>\n<p>this judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The appeal is allowed in part. No cost.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                              P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>                            P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE<br \/>\ndnc<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Bijoy Aged 28 vs Mathew Jose on 13 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MACA.No. 1480 of 2007(Y) 1. BIJOY AGED 28,S\/O.CHANDRAN PARAMBIKADAN &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. MATHEW JOSE, VETTIKOMBIL HOUSE, &#8230; Respondent 2. JOPHY MATHEW,S\/O. MATHEW.DO&#8230;DO&#8230; 3. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE 4. E.M.SASIDHARAN S\/O. EDATHADAN MADHAVAN, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-230196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bijoy Aged 28 vs Mathew Jose on 13 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bijoy Aged 28 vs Mathew Jose on 13 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-28T07:25:59+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=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bijoy Aged 28 vs Mathew Jose on 13 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-28T07:25:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":678,\"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\\\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Bijoy Aged 28 vs Mathew Jose on 13 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-28T07:25:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bijoy Aged 28 vs Mathew Jose on 13 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Bijoy Aged 28 vs Mathew Jose on 13 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bijoy Aged 28 vs Mathew Jose on 13 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-28T07:25:59+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":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bijoy Aged 28 vs Mathew Jose on 13 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-28T07:25:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009"},"wordCount":678,"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\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009","name":"Bijoy Aged 28 vs Mathew Jose on 13 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-28T07:25:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bijoy-aged-28-vs-mathew-jose-on-13-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bijoy Aged 28 vs Mathew Jose on 13 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/230196","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=230196"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230196\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}