{"id":2627,"date":"2007-07-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007"},"modified":"2016-03-27T11:01:58","modified_gmt":"2016-03-27T05:31:58","slug":"safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"Safna vs Ramankutty on 4 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Safna vs Ramankutty on 4 July, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMFA No. 41 of 2001()\n\n\n\n1. SAFNA, D\/O.ABOOBACKER\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. RAMANKUTTY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.SUNIL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.RAJESH THOMAS\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :04\/07\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
         J.B. KOSHY and K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
            —————————-\n<\/p>\n
                M.F.A. No.41 of 2001\n<\/p>\n
            —————————-\n<\/p>\n
       Dated this the 4th day of July, 2007<\/p>\n
                        Judgment<\/p>\n
Koshy, J.\n<\/p>\n
         A six year old girl child while walking through<\/p>\n
Mannarkkad – Perinthalmanna road was hit by a lorry<\/p>\n
bearing registration No. TDV 3769 which was driven by the<\/p>\n
first respondent in a rash and negligent manner.      The<\/p>\n
lorry was owned by the second respondent and insured by<\/p>\n
the third respondent.   As a result of the accident, she<\/p>\n
suffered serious injuries like crush injury on the right<\/p>\n
leg, total loss of vascularity and extensive degloving<\/p>\n
injury on left thigh, amputation of right leg, wound on<\/p>\n
left thigh and knee and skin grafting also had to be<\/p>\n
done.  She filed a claim petition through her guardian<\/p>\n
for  Rs.7,29,100\/=  limited   to  Rupees  Six  lakhs   as<\/p>\n
compensation.  Tribunal found that the accident occurred<\/p>\n
due to the negligence of the lorry driver and the lorry<\/p>\n
had valid coverage of insurance by the policy issued by<\/p>\n
the third respondent.     But, tribunal only awarded a<\/p>\n
compensation  of   Rs.1,53,576\/=.      Only  quantum   of<\/p>\n
compensation is disputed in this appeal.<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.41\/2001               2<\/span><\/p>\n
            2.    Ext.A4 is the wound certificate.      The<\/p>\n
details of injuries noted are:\n<\/p>\n
                 “1. Crush injury (R) leg with degloving
\n            injury (R) leg held to position above a thin
\n            tag of skin. Distal portion and avascular.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 2.  Degloving injury lateral aspect of
\n            (L) thigh with abrasion (L) iliac foss and
\n            abdomen.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
She was hospitalised for a period of about 40 days, i.e.,<\/p>\n
got admitted on 8.3.1997 and was discharged on 16.4.1997.<\/p>\n
During the period, she underwent emergency BK amputation<\/p>\n
of right leg.       Wound debridment and suturing to left<\/p>\n
thigh   and    knee wound.    Skin  grafting  was  done  on<\/p>\n
29.3.1997.     Exts.A5 and A6 are treatment and disability<\/p>\n
certificates.     In Ext.A7, it is certified by the doctor<\/p>\n
that   the     petitioner  is   having  permanent   partial<\/p>\n
disability of 70%.       The tribunal found as follows at<\/p>\n
paragraph 17 of the order:\n<\/p>\n
                 “17.     The  injuries   sustained  to
\n            petitioner  was grievous.    She  underwent
\n            below knee amputation of right leg and she
\n            uses artificial shoe to limit and contain
\n            the   impact  of      amputation  affecting
\n            mobility.    She spent heavy medical bill
\n            amount   for  treatment   purposes.     The
\n            amputation of right leg below      knee has
\n            caused disability as well as disfigurement
\n            and has affected marriage prospects of her<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.41\/2001               3<\/span><\/p>\n
            in future life.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3.  With regard to disability compensation, the<\/p>\n
tribunal held as follows at paragraph 20:<\/p>\n
                 “20.  The injuries also require to be
\n            compensated.     It   has   cast   permanent
\n            disability of 70% on petitioner.    However,
\n            the  doctor   is   not  examined   and   the
\n            disability is stated as partial permanent in
\n            nature.   Taking a mediocre percentage of
\n            disability  at 60%, a sum of Rs.75,000\/= is
\n            allowed  as  compensation  under  the   head
\n            disability.  The injury also requires to be
\n            compensated.  Allowing a sum of Rs.14,000\/=
\n            is justified.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We are of the opinion that tribunal was not justified in<\/p>\n
a mediocre assessment of permanent disability.    There was<\/p>\n
amputation of right leg below knee and crush injury on<\/p>\n
the right leg.    Skin grafting was done on the right leg.<\/p>\n
Even though contention of the counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
to compensate has to be granted for 100% loss of earning<\/p>\n
power due to disability should be granted as the girl<\/p>\n
child with the disability will not be able to get any job<\/p>\n
in future and her life itself has become miserable.      As<\/p>\n
found by the tribunal, she lost her prospects for married<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.41\/2001                4<\/span><\/p>\n
life or employment.     She will be a liability to others.<\/p>\n
She has to depend on others for everything.      She has to<\/p>\n
wear artificial leg and shoe.       Disability certified is<\/p>\n
not disputed by the insurance company or any other<\/p>\n
respondent.     Since she was only 6 year old at the time of<\/p>\n
accident, she has to change the artificial leg and shoe<\/p>\n
periodically. Hence, we are of the opinion that there is<\/p>\n
no justification for awarding compensation for loss of<\/p>\n
earning     power   and   disability  “taking   a   mediocre<\/p>\n
percentage of disability at 60%” and awarded a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.75,000\/-.      She is entitled to compensation for 70%<\/p>\n
disability as certified by the doctor though it may<\/p>\n
amount to 100% loss of earning power and consequent loss<\/p>\n
of earning.\n<\/p>\n
            4. Tribunal did not award compensation on a<\/p>\n
scientific manner.     A three member bench of the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court    in   Smt.Supe  Dei   and  others  v.   M\/s.National<\/p>\n
Insurance Company Ltd.and<\/a> another (JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC<\/p>\n
451), held that the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles<\/p>\n
Act is framed for the purpose of awarding compensation<\/p>\n
under section 163-A, but, it serves as a guideline for<\/p>\n
determination of compensation under section 166 of the<\/p>\n
Motor Vehicles Act. Since the victim of the accident in<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.41\/2001               5<\/span><\/p>\n
that case was aged 32, considering the second schedule,<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted 17 as the multiplier.     In<\/p>\n
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan<\/p>\n
and others (JT 2002 (5) SC 74), the Apex Court held that,<\/p>\n
except in very rare cases, multiplier system should not<\/p>\n
be deviated from.    The other methods, which were in vogue<\/p>\n
prior to the introduction of the multiplier system, were<\/p>\n
held to be no more good system.    It was further held that<\/p>\n
normally the multiplier, as indicated in the second<\/p>\n
schedule, should be applied.    Though the second schedule<\/p>\n
is  found     to be  a  safe  guide  for  the  purpose  of<\/p>\n
calculation of the amount of compensation, in special<\/p>\n
circumstances, it can be varied.     In that case, it was<\/p>\n
also held that if the multiplicand is very high, a lesser<\/p>\n
multiplier can be taken. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy.<\/p>\n
Director General, Geological Survey of India and<\/a> another<\/p>\n
((2003) 3 SCC 148), it was held that structured formula<\/p>\n
mentioned in the second schedule gives guidelines for<\/p>\n
determination of the amount of compensation in terms of<\/p>\n
section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Deviation from the<\/p>\n
structured formula can be resorted to only in exceptional<\/p>\n
cases and ordinarily the above multiplier system should<\/p>\n
be followed.     In 1994, when second schedule was framed,<\/p>\n
notional income of a non-earning person is fixed as<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.41\/2001                6<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/= per annum.       This accident is occurred in<\/p>\n
1997.    Hence, there is no need to enhance the notional<\/p>\n
income fixed in the second schedule for calculation of<\/p>\n
compensation.      Under the second schedule, multiplier<\/p>\n
fixed for children below the age of 15 year is 15.       If<\/p>\n
compensation is calculated for disability and loss of<\/p>\n
earning power due to disability is calculated, it will be<\/p>\n
Rs. 15,000 x     70 x 15  = Rs.1,57,500\/=.    Tribunal has<\/p>\n
                100<\/span><\/p>\n
awarded compensation for disability at Rs.75,000\/= and<\/p>\n
injury compensation at Rs.14,000\/=.    If that is deducted,<\/p>\n
additional compensation payable will be Rs.68,500\/=.<\/p>\n
            5.   In the claim petition Rs.6,00,000\/= was<\/p>\n
claimed as expenses for future medical treatment.        No<\/p>\n
amount was awarded by the tribunal for future medical<\/p>\n
expenses.      A three-member Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and<\/a> ohters (2002 AIR<\/p>\n
SCW 5345 – AIR 2003 SC 674) held as follows:<\/p>\n
                 “23.  However,  it is  to  be   clearly
\n            understood that M.V. Act does not provide
\n            for passing of further award after final
\n            award is passed. Therefore, in a case where
\n            injury  to  a   victim requires   periodical
\n            medical  expenses,  fresh  award  cannot  be
\n            passed or previous award cannot be reviewed
\n            when the medical expenses are incurred after<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.41\/2001               7<\/span><\/p>\n
            finalisation     of     the     compensation
\n            proceedings.   Hence, only alternative is
\n            that at the time of passing of final award,
\n            Tribunal\/Court    should    consider    such
\n            eventuality     and     fix     compensation
\n            accordingly.  No one can suggest that it is
\n            improper to take into account expenditure
\n            genuinely  and  reasonably  required  to  be
\n            incurred  for   future   medical   expenses.
\n            Future  medical  expenses  required  to   be
\n            incurred can be determined only on the basis
\n            of fair guess work after taking into account
\n            increase in the cost of medical treatment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Here, accident occurred to the minor girl at the age of<\/p>\n
six.     Artificial shoe and leg have to be replaced<\/p>\n
periodically. In Nagappa’s case (supra), appellant was<\/p>\n
granted    Rupees  One  lakh   as  additional  compensation<\/p>\n
considering periodical replacement of artificial leg and<\/p>\n
for future treatment expenses.      We are of the opinion<\/p>\n
that at least Rs.30,000\/= should be granted    in this case<\/p>\n
for future medical expenses like expenses for replacement<\/p>\n
of artificial shoe and leg etc.<\/p>\n
            6.   It is contended that several operations<\/p>\n
were   done.    Skin grafting   was  done    and   she  was<\/p>\n
hospitalised for more than 40 days and thereafter also<\/p>\n
she had to continue the treatment, but, only Rs.4,000\/=<\/p>\n
was    granted    for   treatment   expenses   apart   from<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.41\/2001               8<\/span><\/p>\n
reimbursement on the basis of actual bills produced for<\/p>\n
purchase of medicines.       Rs.4,000\/- is very low.    No<\/p>\n
amount was granted for other treatment expenses.      There<\/p>\n
were many expenses uncovered by the bills. We are of the<\/p>\n
opinion that at least Rs.1,500\/- more should be given<\/p>\n
under this head.     Compensation granted for disfigurement<\/p>\n
at Rs.5,000\/= and for pain and suffering at Rs.15,000\/=.<\/p>\n
Considering the amputation, crush injuries and various<\/p>\n
operations and mental agony, we are of the opinion that<\/p>\n
at least Rs.5,000\/- more should be given under this head<\/p>\n
and compensation for attendant’s expenses at Rs.3,000\/=<\/p>\n
are very low as she needs continuous help of a third<\/p>\n
person throughout her life.       It is also argued that<\/p>\n
compensation     granted  under   all  other   heads   like<\/p>\n
transportation etc. are very low.     Considering the total<\/p>\n
amount granted we are not enhancing compensation granted<\/p>\n
on other heads.\n<\/p>\n
            The additional amount of Rs.85,000\/- shall be<\/p>\n
deposited by the third respondent insurance company with<\/p>\n
7%  interest    from  the  date  of  application  till  its<\/p>\n
deposit.     On deposit of the amount, Rs.25,000\/- shall be<\/p>\n
released to the guardian of the girl for medical expenses<\/p>\n
of  the     child.    Balance  shall  be  deposited  in  a<\/p>\n
nationalised bank for ten years and periodical interest<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.41\/2001               9<\/span><\/p>\n
shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the father till she<\/p>\n
attains majority and then to her after she attains<\/p>\n
majority.\n<\/p>\n
            Appeal allowed partly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       J.B.KOSHY
\n                                         JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                    K.P.BALACHANDRAN
\n                                        JUDGE<\/p>\n
vaa<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No.41\/2001    10<\/span><\/p>\n
                            J.B. KOSHY AND
\n                        K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                      ————————–\n<\/p>\n
                           M.F.A.NO.41\/2001\n<\/p>\n
                      ————————–\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                              JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                         Dated:4th July, 2007<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Safna vs Ramankutty on 4 July, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MFA No. 41 of 2001() 1. SAFNA, D\/O.ABOOBACKER … Petitioner Vs 1. RAMANKUTTY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.SUNIL For Respondent :SRI.RAJESH THOMAS The Hon’ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN Dated :04\/07\/2007 O R D […]<\/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-2627","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSafna vs Ramankutty on 4 July, 2007 - 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\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Safna vs Ramankutty on 4 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-27T05:31:58+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Safna vs Ramankutty on 4 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-27T05:31:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1660,\"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\\\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007\",\"name\":\"Safna vs Ramankutty on 4 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-27T05:31:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Safna vs Ramankutty on 4 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Safna vs Ramankutty on 4 July, 2007 - 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\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Safna vs Ramankutty on 4 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-27T05:31:58+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Safna vs Ramankutty on 4 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-27T05:31:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007"},"wordCount":1660,"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\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007","name":"Safna vs Ramankutty on 4 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-27T05:31:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/safna-vs-ramankutty-on-4-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Safna vs Ramankutty on 4 July, 2007"}]},{"@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\/2627","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=2627"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2627\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2627"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2627"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}