{"id":53277,"date":"2010-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-09T17:35:51","modified_gmt":"2016-08-09T12:05:51","slug":"tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Tamil Nadu State Transport … vs Antony Xavier Rayer on 26 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Tamil Nadu State Transport … vs Antony Xavier Rayer on 26 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated: 26\/03\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.1263 of 2008\nand\nCros.Obj.(MD)No.53 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008\nM.P.(MD)No. 3 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010\n\n\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,\nKumbakonam Limited, Trichy, Division II,\nrepresented by its Managing Director,\nTrichy.\t\t\t\t             ... Appellant \/ Respondent\n\nVs\n\nAntony Xavier Rayer, K.\t... Respondent\/Petitioner\n\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the\njudgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No.2938 of 2002 dated 27.09.2007, on the file\nof the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court\/Fast Track\nCourt No.II, Trichy.\n\n\n!For Appellant   ... Mr.Royce Emmanuel\n^For Respondent  ... Ms.J.Maria Roseline\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t* * * * *\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against
\nthe judgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No.2938 of 2002 dated 27.09.2007, on the
\nfile of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court\/Fast Track
\nCourt No.II, Trichy.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The appellant is the Transport Corporation.  On 03.04.2002 at about
\n8.00 p.m., the respondent rode a two wheeler namely TVS XL on Trichy-Dindigul
\nmain road. The bus bearing Registration No.TN-45-N-1655 of the appellant
\nCorporation hit the respondent behind the two wheeler. The respondent was thrown
\nout and he got grievous injuries at the head, on the right eye and all over the
\nbody. He was admitted in Maruthi Hospital, Trichy on 03.04.2002 as in patient.
\nHe was treated upto 22.07.2002.  The respondent was employed as Office
\nSuperintendent in Southern railways.  He was aged about 53 years at the time of
\nthe accident.  Due to severe injuries, his vision in right eye was seriously
\naffected.  He also suffered giddiness, loss of memory and head ache due to the
\nhead injuries.  In these circumstances, he opted to go under voluntary
\nretirement as he could not continue in the employment.  He voluntarily retired
\nfrom service on 01.08.2004.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. He filed M.C.O.P.No.2938 of 2002, claiming Rs.7,00,000\/- as
\ncompensation.  His son, the owner of the two wheeler filed M.C.O.P.No.2939 of
\n2002, claiming damages for the vehicle.  Both M.C.O.Ps were tried together
\nbefore the Tribunal.  Five witnesses were examined on the side of the claimants.
\nDocuments Ex.A.1 to A.15 were marked.  On the side of the appellant, the driver
\nof the bus was examined and no document was marked.  The Tribunal passed an
\naward dated 27.09.2007 granting Rs.2,50,000\/- as compensation with 7.5% interest
\nand costs to the claimant.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. This appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation questioning the
\naward on the ground that the Tribunal erred in holding that the driver of the
\nbus was rash and negligent in causing the accident and that the Tribunal awarded
\nexcessive amount.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The respondent filed cross objection seeking for enhancement of the
\naward amount upto Rs.9,75,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the driver of the
\nbus was not responsible for the accident and that the road where the accident
\ntook place was a crowded road and that the respondent on seeing a pit, came to
\nthe right side of the road and hit against the bus.  Since the respondent came
\nto the right side of the road to avoid a pit on the road, he should be held
\nresponsible for the accident.  He relies on the deposition of R.W.1, the driver
\nof the Transport  Corporation in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the claimant submits that
\nthe driver of the bus was solely responsible for the accident and that he came
\nrashly and negligently and hit behind the two wheeler.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Counsel submits that F.I.R. was registered against the driver and
\nthat three witnesses including the claimant who witnessed the accident spoke
\nconsistently that the driver of the bus drove rashly and negligently and caused
\nthe accident.  Therefore, the Tribunal could not be found fault in its finding
\nas to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The learned Counsel for the claimant submits that nowhere the appellant
\nstated in the counter statement that was filed in M.C.O.P. that there was a pit
\non the road and that the claimant came to the right side to avoid the pit and
\nhit against the bus.  It is submitted that it was an after thought and the story
\nwas invented by the driver to escape his responsibility.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the
\nrecords.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the claimant that the
\nTransport Corporation nowhere stated in the counter that the claimant came to
\nthe right side of the road to avoid a pit on the road and in that process, he
\nhit against the bus.  Paragraph 3 of the counter statement of the appellant is
\nrelevant in this regard and the same is extracted here:\n<\/p>\n
“3. The allegations in para 23 of the petition are all denied as false and the
\naccident did not happen in the manner as set out in the petition.  On
\n03.04.2002, this respondent’s vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-45-N-1655 driven by its
\ndriver with all care and caution was proceeding from Trichy to Palani.  At about
\n20.00 hrs. the above said vehicle was proceeding near National College, Trichy.
\nAt that time, ahead of this respondent bus a moped rider was proceeding in the
\nsame direction.  The driver of this respondent sounded horn and made his
\nintentions clear to overtake the moped rider.  When actually 3\/4th of this
\nrespondent’s bus has passed the moped rider in the process of overtaking, the
\nmoped rider turned his moped to its right side and the moped dashed against the
\nleft side rear body of this respondent bus.  Thus the driver of this respondent
\nwas in no way responsible for the accident.  The petitioner was solely
\nresponsible for the accident.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12. But the driver spoke differently when he deposed before the Tribunal.
\nThe following is the discussion of the Tribunal that is found in paragraph 9 of
\nthe award.  The following passage is extracted hereunder:
\n“v.k.rh.1 muR Bghf;Ftuj;J fHf BgUe;jpd; Xl;Leh; uj;jpdk; jd; rhl;rpaj;jpy;,
\n03.04.2002 md;W nut[ Rkhh; 8.15 kzpf;F Berdy; fy;Yhp mUBf Bghf;Ftuj;J mjpfkhf
\nnUe;jjhy; kpf epjhdj;Jld;, ftdkhft[k; bkJthft[k; BgUe;ij naf;fp bry;Yk;BghJ
\nBerdy; fy;Yhp jpUr;rp-jpz;Lf;fy; rhiyapy; jdf;F Kd;dhy; brd;w o.tpv!;. 50I Ke;jp
\nbry;Yk;BghJ jFe;j Mud; moj;J vr;rhpf;if bra;J bfhz;L o.tp.v!; 50I Ke;jp
\nbry;Yk;BghJ  o.tp.v!; 50 Xl;Ldh; rpwpa gs;sk; nUe;jjhy; rlhbud;W o.tp.v!; 50
\nbkhbghl;il jpUg;gpajhy; jhd; BgUe;jpd; nlJg[wk; irL ghoapy; noj;Jtpl;ljhf
\nFwpg;gpl;L..”\n<\/p>\n
\t13. It is clearly seen that the driver of the bus came with a different
\nversion. His deposition before the Tribunal is not consistent with the statement
\nin the counter.  Further three witnesses including the claimant spoke
\nconsistently that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident.  In
\nthese circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the award of the Tribunal as
\nto its finding that the driver was rash and negligent in causing the accident.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal ought
\nnot to have awarded Rs.70,000\/- towards disability compensation when the
\nTribunal awarded Rs.50,000\/- towards loss of earning. The learned Counsel
\nfurther submits that the Tribunal also committed error in awarding Rs.25,000\/-
\ntowards pain and suffering.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The learned Counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal failed
\nto adopt the multiplier method as per clause 5(b) of the Second Schedule of the
\nMotor Vehicles Act for assessing the loss of income.  The learned Counsel
\nsubmits that though the doctor assessed at 35% permanent partial disability, it
\nshould be taken as 100% loss, as the claimant left the employment and opted to
\nretire voluntarily.  The learned Counsel also submits that the claimant is
\nentitled to be compensated towards his loss of income until his retirement.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. In this regard, clause 5(b) of the Second Schedule of the Motor
\nVehicles Act, which is relevant for the purpose of the case, is extracted
\nhereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t“5.Disability in non-fatal accidents:\n<\/p>\n
The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim
\narising out of non-fatal accidents:\n<\/p>\n
Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty-two
\nweeks.\n<\/p>\n
Plus either of the following:-\n<\/p>\n
(a) In case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived
\nat by multiplying the annual loss of income by the Multiplier applicable to the
\nage on the date of determining the compensation, or\n<\/p>\n
(b) In case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation
\nwhich would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as
\nspecified under item(a) above.\n<\/p>\n
Injuries deemed to result in Permanent Total Disablement\/Permanent Partial
\nDisablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule
\nI under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.”\n<\/p>\n
\t17. In view of Clause 5(b) of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles
\nAct, the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier method and should have worked
\nout the compensation payable to the claimant. The learned Counsel for the
\nclaimant states that though the doctor certified that the claimant suffered 35%
\npartial permanent disability, since he left the employment due to the injuries,
\nit should be taken that he suffered 100% disability. That is, the learned
\nCounsel argues that the loss of earning was 100%.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation
\nseriously objects for taking that the claimant suffered 100% loss of earning
\ncapacity.  The learned Counsel submits that there is no evidence placed before
\nthe Tribunal that he left the employment due to the injury.  Further, it is
\nstated that he went under voluntary retirement and he is in receipt of pension
\nand other benefits. Both Counsel relies on the evidence of the doctor in support
\nof their contentions.   The evidence of the doctor who was examined as P.W.4 is
\nextracted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
“kDjhuUf;F ehd; Behpilahf rpfpr;ir mspf;ftpy;iy. fhar;rhd;wpjH; tHA;Fk;BghJjhd;
\nehd; kDjhuiu ghh;j;Bjd;.  03.04.2002 ypUe;J jw;BghJ tiu kDjhuh; vd;d rpfpr;irfs;
\nBkw;bfhz;lhh; vd;w tptuk; vdf;F bjhpahJ.  kDjhuUf;F jiytyp, kaf;fk; kDjhuh;
\nTwpajhy;jhd; vdf;F bjhpa[k;. ehd; Kis euk;gpay; kUj;Jth; vd;why; rhpjhd;.
\nkDjhuUf;F cjtp bra;a[k; Behf;fj;jpy; Cdj;jpd; msit kpifg;gLj;p TWfpBwd; vd;why;
\nrhpay;y.”\n<\/p>\n
The learned Counsel for the claimant also seeks to compensate the loss in actual
\nearning due to voluntary retirement upto the date of the actual retirement.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. I am not inclined to treat that the claimant suffered 100% loss of
\nearning capacity.  Nowhere, the doctor said that he could not do any work.
\nFurther no evidence is placed that he opted to go under voluntary retirement due
\nto the injuries. In these circumstances,  the submissions of the learned Counsel
\nfor the claimant that the claimant is entitled to compensation treating that he
\nhas suffered 100% disability, deserves to be rejected.  Likewise, the other
\nsubmissions of the learned Counsel for the claimant that the claimant is
\nentitled to the loss of the salary due to the voluntary retirement upto the date
\nof actual retirement has no force.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. However, as per clause 5 (b) of the Second Schedule of the Motor
\nVehicles Act, the claimant is entitled to compensation for 35% of permanent
\npartial disability.  The claimant was paid Rs.15,252\/- as monthly salary at the
\ntime of the accident as per Exs.A.4 and A.5 and the same is not disputed. The
\nmultiplier for the age of 53 years is “11” as per the decision of the Honourable
\nApex Court in  Sarala Varma’s case reported in 2009(2) TNMAC 1. Hence, the
\ncompensation for loss of income payable to the claimant as per clause 5(b) of
\nthe Second      Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act is
\nRs.15,252x12x11x35\/100=Rs.7,04,642.40\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t21. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, if the
\nclaimant is awarded Rs.7,04,642.40\/- as per clause 5(b) of the Second Schedule
\nof the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is not entitled to Rs.70,000\/- towards
\ndisability compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as held by the Full Bench
\ndecision of this Court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited Vs. Ahamed Thambi
\nand six others  reported in  2006(3) L.W.1025.   Therefore, the amount of
\nRs.70,000\/- towards disability compensation and Rs.50,000\/- towards loss of
\nincome are deleted from the award.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. I am not in agreement that the Tribunal awarded on the higher side
\ntowards pain and sufferings.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. The learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the other
\nheads, though grounds were raised in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. In these circumstances, this Court awards compensation to the claimant
\nas follows:<\/p>\n
\n\n\t(i)  compensation under clause 5(b)\n            of the Second Schedule of the\n\t     Motor Vehicles Act\t           Rs.7,04,642.40\n\n\t(ii) for medical expenses\t   Rs.  90,000.00\n\t(iii)for pain and sufferings       Rs.  25,000.00\n\n\n\t(iv) for transport, extra\n\t\tnourishment and\n\t\tmedical attendant\t   Rs.  15,000.00\n\t(v)  for loss of amenities\n\t\tand enjoyment in life\t   Rs.  25,000.00\n\t\t\t\t\t  ---------------\n\t\t\t\t\t   Rs.8,59,642.40\n\t\t\t\t\t  ---------------\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t25. The appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
\ncompensation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
\nthis order   with the same interest as ordered by the Tribunal from the date of
\napplication. On such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw
\nthe same.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of in the
\nabove terms. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
ssl<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
\nAdditional District Court\/
\nFast Track Court No.II, Trichy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Tamil Nadu State Transport … vs Antony Xavier Rayer on 26 March, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 26\/03\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN C.M.A.(MD)No.1263 of 2008 and Cros.Obj.(MD)No.53 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 M.P.(MD)No. 3 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, […]<\/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-53277","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Antony Xavier Rayer on 26 March, 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\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Antony Xavier Rayer on 26 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-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=\"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-09T12:05:51+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tamil Nadu State Transport … vs Antony Xavier Rayer on 26 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-09T12:05:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2143,\"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\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Antony Xavier Rayer on 26 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-09T12:05:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu State Transport … vs Antony Xavier Rayer on 26 March, 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":"Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Antony Xavier Rayer on 26 March, 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\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Antony Xavier Rayer on 26 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-09T12:05:51+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tamil Nadu State Transport … vs Antony Xavier Rayer on 26 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-09T12:05:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010"},"wordCount":2143,"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\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010","name":"Tamil Nadu State Transport ... vs Antony Xavier Rayer on 26 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-09T12:05:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-antony-xavier-rayer-on-26-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tamil Nadu State Transport … vs Antony Xavier Rayer on 26 March, 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\/53277","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=53277"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53277\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53277"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53277"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53277"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}