{"id":3238,"date":"2006-03-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006"},"modified":"2014-07-19T03:42:00","modified_gmt":"2014-07-18T22:12:00","slug":"the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Branch Manager vs Vellaiyan Alias Kunjan on 20 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Branch Manager vs Vellaiyan Alias Kunjan on 20 March, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 20\/03\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN\n\n\nC.M.A.No.986 of 2005\n\n\nThe Branch Manager,\nNational Insurance Company Limited,\nChetty Street,\t\t\t\t\nTiruchencode.\t\t\t\t...\tAppellant\n\n\nVs\n\n\n1.Vellaiyan alias Kunjan\n2.Pappathi\n3.Vinganamoorthy\t\t\t...\tRespondents\n\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nAppeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation act, 1923,\nagainst the order dated 01.03.2005 passed in W.C.No.474 of 2003 by the\nCommissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner for Labour),\nTiruchirappalli.\n\n\n!For Appellant    \t...\tMr.S.Ramachandran\n\n\n^For Respondents  \t...\tMr.R.Mathialagan\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis appeal has been preferred against the award of compensation passed in<br \/>\nW.C.No.474 of 2003 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Labour, under<br \/>\nWorkmen&#8217;s Compensation Act, Tiruchirappalli.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Short facts of the case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The deceased Kamaraj @ Sakthivel was working under the respondent as an<br \/>\nemployee in his bore well lorry.  On 06.09.2003, while he was fixing the rod in<br \/>\nthe bed, the rod touched the live wire, resulting the death of Kamaraj @<br \/>\nSakthivel, due to an electrocution.  At the time of the accident, the deceased<br \/>\nwas drawing a sum of Rs.4,500\/- towards his monthly salary.  The first<br \/>\nrespondent had insured the vehicle which involved in the accident with the<br \/>\nsecond respondent \/ National Insurance Company.  The  claimants are the parents<br \/>\nof the deceased Kamaraj.  They have claimed Rs.6 lakhs towards compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The first respondent remained ex-parte.  The second respondent in his<br \/>\ncounter has contended that the vehicle was not insured under the second<br \/>\nrespondent.  The driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence to drive the<br \/>\nlorry which involved in the accident and that the deceased Kamaraj was not an<br \/>\nemployee under the first respondent and that the accident had not occurred<br \/>\nduring the course of the employment.  In the additional counter, the second<br \/>\nrespondent has contended that as per the terms of the policy, the second<br \/>\nrespondent is not bound to indemnify the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Before the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Workmen&#8217;s<br \/>\nCompensation Act, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.P.1 to P.5 were marked on the side<br \/>\nof the claimants.  On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1<br \/>\nwas marked.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned<br \/>\nDeputy Commissioner for Labour under Workmen&#8217;s Compensation Act, had come to a<br \/>\nconclusion that as per the terms of the policy, the second respondent is liable<br \/>\nto pay the compensation to the claimants and fixed the compensation as<br \/>\nRs.3,25,147\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Aggrieved by the award of compensation, the second respondent had<br \/>\npreferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Now, the substantial question of law to be decided in this appeal is<br \/>\nwhether under Ex.R.1, the second respondent is liable to indemnify the first<br \/>\nrespondent for the award amount?\n<\/p>\n<p>The Point:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that as per the<br \/>\nterms of the policy, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation.  But, the<br \/>\nlearned Counsel would admit that there is no I.M.T 37 attached to the terms of<br \/>\nthe policy.  The learned Counsel for the appellant relying on the decision in<br \/>\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd., Salem Vs. Ayyadurai and another reported in 2004<br \/>\n(2) TN MAC 47, contended that the lorry which was insured with the second<br \/>\nrespondent had not involved in any accident.  But while fixing the shaft of the<br \/>\nrod, it touched the live wire resulting the death of Kamaraj @ Sakthivel and<br \/>\nhence, the learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that there is no<br \/>\ncoverage of policy indemnifying the insured \/ the appellant herein to pay<br \/>\ncompensation to the claimants.  The facts of the case relied on by the learned<br \/>\nCounsel for the appellant entirely differs from the facts of the present case,<br \/>\nbecause in the said case, there was an exclusion clause in the policy,<br \/>\nspecifically providing, in case, the liability arisen out of its operation or<br \/>\nits use for part of vehicle or attached to the vehicle was inducted in the<br \/>\npolicy itself.  Whereas a perusal of Ex.R.1, the policy, would go to show that<br \/>\nit specifically in this case covers them (W.C) to 7 employees.  There is no<br \/>\nexclusion clause provided under the policy as that of one in the decision cited<br \/>\nabove.  So, the facts of the case in 2004 (2) TN MAC 47 is not applicable to the<br \/>\npresent facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The learned Counsel for the respondent, per contra, relied on the<br \/>\ndecision in National Insurance Company Limited, Gobichettypalayam, Erode<br \/>\nDistrict Vs. Arumugham and others reported in 2006 (1) TLNJ (Civil) 340.  The<br \/>\nfacts of the case are similar to the facts of the present case.  In the said<br \/>\ncase, a helper, who was working in a rig unit lorry, died during the course of<br \/>\nhis employment.  On 16.09.1996, when the rig unit was in operation, the deceased<br \/>\ngot electrocuted and died while in the course of his employment.  Since, the<br \/>\nlorry along with rig unit was covered under Ex.P.4, policy, wherein it was held<br \/>\nby the learned Single Judge of this Court that the Insurance Company is liable<br \/>\nto pay compensation to the parents of the deceased.  A perusal of the award will<br \/>\ngo to show that the Deputy Commissioner for Labour has observed that E.M.T.37 &#8211;<br \/>\nTariff Advisory Committee, Bombay &#8211; India Motor Tariff, 01.08.1989 was attached<br \/>\nto the policy, Ex.R.1.  But, there is no connection between the said endorsement<br \/>\nand the terms and conditions of the policy.  Because, there was no exclusion<br \/>\nclause, provided under the terms of the policy.  Further, the policy<br \/>\nspecifically covers 7 employees only.  Under such circumstances, the Deputy<br \/>\nCommissioner for Labour under Workmen&#8217;s Compensation Act, has come to a<br \/>\nconclusion that the insured \/ the appellant, National Insurance Company Limited,<br \/>\nis liable to indemnify the insurer, the first respondent.  The learned Counsel<br \/>\nfor the appellant would contend that the accident had occurred in the year 2003<br \/>\nand as per the then prevailing R.B.I interest, he is liable to pay only 9%<br \/>\ninterest.  The learned Counsel for the appellant also  advanced an argument<br \/>\nrelying on the decision in P.J.Narayan Vs. Union of India and others reported in<br \/>\n2004 ACJ 452 to the effect that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any<br \/>\ninterest.  A perusal of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in 2004 ACJ<br \/>\n452 will go to show that if there is any contract between the insurer and the<br \/>\ninsured to the effect that the insured is liable to pay any interest, then as<br \/>\nper the terms and conditions of the policy, the insured is not liable to pay any<br \/>\ncompensation.  But, there is no specific provision inducted in the policy,<br \/>\nEx.R.1, excluding the interest clause.  Under such circumstances, the Insurance<br \/>\nCompany is liable to pay 9% interest, in case if they fail to deposit the award<br \/>\namount within 30 days from today i.e, from the date of award.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Hence, I hold on the point that under Ex.R.1, policy, the second<br \/>\nrespondent \/ the appellant is liable to pay the award amount with 9% interest,<br \/>\nafter 30 days from today i.e, from the date of award.  The point is answered<br \/>\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the award passed in<br \/>\nW.C.No.474 of 2003 by the Commissioner for Workmen&#8217;s Compensation (Deputy<br \/>\nCommissioner for Labour), Tiruchirappalli, except the liability of the appellant<br \/>\nto pay 9% interest instead of 12% interest after 30 days from today i.e, from<br \/>\nthe date of award.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Commissioner for Workmen&#8217;s Compensation<br \/>\n(Deputy Commissioner for Labour),<br \/>\nTiruchirappalli.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Branch Manager vs Vellaiyan Alias Kunjan on 20 March, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20\/03\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN C.M.A.No.986 of 2005 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Chetty Street, Tiruchencode. &#8230; Appellant Vs 1.Vellaiyan alias Kunjan 2.Pappathi 3.Vinganamoorthy &#8230; Respondents Prayer [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3238","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Branch Manager vs Vellaiyan Alias Kunjan on 20 March, 2006 - 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\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Branch Manager vs Vellaiyan Alias Kunjan on 20 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-18T22:12:00+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Branch Manager vs Vellaiyan Alias Kunjan on 20 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-18T22:12:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1176,\"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\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006\",\"name\":\"The Branch Manager vs Vellaiyan Alias Kunjan on 20 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-18T22:12:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Branch Manager vs Vellaiyan Alias Kunjan on 20 March, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"The Branch Manager vs Vellaiyan Alias Kunjan on 20 March, 2006 - 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\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Branch Manager vs Vellaiyan Alias Kunjan on 20 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-18T22:12:00+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Branch Manager vs Vellaiyan Alias Kunjan on 20 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-18T22:12:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006"},"wordCount":1176,"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\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006","name":"The Branch Manager vs Vellaiyan Alias Kunjan on 20 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-18T22:12:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-vellaiyan-alias-kunjan-on-20-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Branch Manager vs Vellaiyan Alias Kunjan on 20 March, 2006"}]},{"@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\/3238","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=3238"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3238\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}