{"id":55522,"date":"2007-02-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007"},"modified":"2018-08-19T22:05:37","modified_gmt":"2018-08-19T16:35:37","slug":"paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Paulose vs Vinu on 12 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Paulose vs Vinu on 12 February, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMACA No. 1078 of 2005()\n\n\n1. PAULOSE, ATHITHOTTATHIL HOUSE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. VINU, S\/O. SIMON,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SHYJO, S\/O. PAULOSE,\n\n3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :12\/02\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n\n                            ------------------------------------------\n\n                              M.A.C.A.NO.1078 OF 2005 (C)\n\n                               -----------------------------------------\n\n                       Dated this the  12 th  day of February, 2007.\n\n\n                                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                   The   owner   of   autorikshaw   KL   7\/S   5520   involved   in   a   motor<\/p>\n
accident   on   27.6.98   causing   injuries     to   first   respondent,   is   the   appellant.<\/p>\n
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Moovattupuzha awarded a compensation<\/p>\n
of Rs.16,000\/-  and directed   third respondent  to  pay the  compensation  and<\/p>\n
allowed insurance company to realise it from appellant.  The Motor Accidents<\/p>\n
Claims   Tribunal   holding   that   second   respondent,   the   driver   was   not<\/p>\n
authorised to drive an autorikshaw under Ext.B1 insurance policy, held that<\/p>\n
due   to     violation   of   policy   conditions,   the   insurance   conpany   is   entitled   to<\/p>\n
realise the  amount  paid to  the claimant from appellant, the  insured.   Third<\/p>\n
respondent has already remitted the amount with interest.   The case of the<\/p>\n
appellant was that   Tribunal did not consider the question whether   absence<\/p>\n
of a badge by  second respondent was the cause of the accident and unless it<\/p>\n
was   the   cause   of   the   accident,     insurance   company   cannot   be   exonerated<\/p>\n
from its liability to compensate   appellant and therefore  that portion of the<\/p>\n
award is to be set aside.  Appellant did not appear or contest the case before<\/p>\n
the Tribunal.   Tribunal passed the award   accepting the contentions of third<\/p>\n
respondent and relying on Ext.B2 insurance policy and Ext.B1 driving licence.<\/p>\n
 M.A.C.A.NO.1078 OF 2005 (C)<\/p>\n
                                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
        2.      Learned   counsel   appearing   for   appellant   and   third   respondent<\/p>\n
were heard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        3.      Learned   counsel   for   appellant   relying   on   the   decision   of   Apex<\/p>\n
court in National Insurance Company  vs. Swaran Singh<\/a> (2004 (1) KLT 781)<\/p>\n
and    Division  Bench  of  this court  in  Ramachandran  vs. Unnikrishnan  (2006<\/p>\n
(2)   KLT   15)  argued   that   mere   absence   of   a   badge   to   drive   a   commercial<\/p>\n
vehicle  is not sufficient to exonerate the insurance company from its liability<\/p>\n
under   Ext.B2   policy   and   no   evidence   was   adduced   before   the   Tribunal   to<\/p>\n
show   that     absence   of     badge   was   either   the   cause   of   accident   or   that   it<\/p>\n
contributed to the accident and therefore  Tribunal should  not have granted<\/p>\n
an award in favour   of third  respondent     to realise   the  amount  paid  to   first<\/p>\n
respondent\/claimant   from   appellant.     Learned   counsel   appearing   for   third<\/p>\n
respondent   relying   on   the   decision   of   Apex   court   in  National   Insurance<\/p>\n
company vs. Kusum Rai (2006 (2) KLT 300) argued that  facts are  identical,<\/p>\n
where the driver was not holding  licence to drive a commercial vehicle  and<\/p>\n
Apex court permitted the Insurance company to realise the amount paid to<\/p>\n
the injured from the insured and therefore the appeal is only to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
        4.      Apex court in Swaran Singh’s case considered the liability of the<\/p>\n
insurance   company   to   pay     compensation   due   to   an   injured   in   a   motor<\/p>\n
accident,   even   in   cases   of   violation   of   policy   conditions.     Thier   Lordship<\/p>\n
summarising the findings in paragraph 102 clause (vi) held;<\/p>\n
                        “Even where the insurer is able to prove  breach on<\/p>\n
 M.A.C.A.NO.1078 OF 2005 (C)<\/p>\n
                                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
                the   part   of   the   insured   concerning   the   policy   condition<\/p>\n
                regarding     holding of  a  valid  licence  by  the   driver  or  his<\/p>\n
                qualification   to   drive   during   the   relevant   period,   the<\/p>\n
                insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards<\/p>\n
                insured   unless   the   said   breach   or   breaches   of   the<\/p>\n
                condition   of   driving   licence   is\/are   so   fundamental   as   are<\/p>\n
                found   to   have   contributed   to   the   cause   of   the   accident.<\/p>\n
                The   Tribunals   in   interpreting   the   policy   conditions   would<\/p>\n
                apply   ‘the   rule   of   main   purpose’   and   the   concept   of<\/p>\n
                ‘fundamental   breach’   to   allow   defences   available   to   the<\/p>\n
                insurer under S.149(2) of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        5.      Though   it  was   held   that   mere   absence,   fake   or   invalid  driving<\/p>\n
licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time are not<\/p>\n
in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or<\/p>\n
third   parties   and   to   avoid   its   liability   towards   insured,   the   insurer   has   to<\/p>\n
prove   that   the   insured   was   guilty   of   negligence   and   failed   to   exercise<\/p>\n
reasonable   care   in   the   matter   of   fulfilling   the   condition   of   policy   regarding<\/p>\n
use   of   vehicles   by   duly   licenced   driver   or   one   who   was   not   disqualified   to<\/p>\n
drive at the relevant time and whether the owner has taken reasonable care<\/p>\n
to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver, does not<\/p>\n
fulfill the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case,<\/p>\n
 M.A.C.A.NO.1078 OF 2005 (C)<\/p>\n
                                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
it   was   held   that   to   avoid   its   liability   towards     insured,   the   insurer   has   to<\/p>\n
establish   that   the   said   breach   or   breaches   of   condition   of   driving   licence<\/p>\n
is\/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the<\/p>\n
accident.  Therefore the fact that  second respondent driver was not holding<\/p>\n
a badge by itself is insufficient to exonerate the insurance company from its<\/p>\n
liability to the insured.  Even if  second respondent was not holding a badge,<\/p>\n
unless the said breach of condition of the driving licence was so fundamental<\/p>\n
as   to   have   contributed   to   the   accident,   insurer   cannot   be   exonerated.     In<\/p>\n
Kusum   Rai’s   case,   relied   on   by   learned   counsel   appearing   for   third<\/p>\n
respondent, it was held that, the question whether the driver did not possess<\/p>\n
any   licence   to   drive   a   commercial   vehicle   and   so   there   was   breach   of<\/p>\n
conditions   of   the   contract   of   insurance     is   a   defence   available   to   the<\/p>\n
insurance company.   It was not   held that for the reason it was a defence,<\/p>\n
insurance   company   is   entitled   to   be   exonerated   in   all   cases.     Quoting   the<\/p>\n
dictum   in   Swaran   Singh’s   case   their   Lordship   relied   on   a   decision   of   the<\/p>\n
Division Bench  in  National  Insurance  Corporation  Ltd.   vs. Kantidevi  (2005<\/p>\n
(5)   SCC   789).    In   that   case   Apex   court     remanded   the   case   back   to   the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, permitting parties to lead such further evidence to prove the facts<\/p>\n
as   directed   in   Swaran   Singh’s   case.     But   that   course   was   not   followed<\/p>\n
considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, finding that     the owner<\/p>\n
did not appear  and the  injured was a 12 year old boy.   Therefore    Kusum<\/p>\n
Rai’s case cannot be taken as a precedent to hold that  absence of a badge<\/p>\n
 M.A.C.A.NO.1078 OF 2005 (C)<\/p>\n
                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
by itself is sufficient to exonerate  the insurance company from avoiding its<\/p>\n
liability to the insured under the insurance policy.  As held in Swaran Singh’s<\/p>\n
case,   unless   that   breach   of   condition   is   found   to   have   contributed   to   the<\/p>\n
cause   of   accident,   insurance   company   is   not   entitled   to   be   exonerated.<\/p>\n
Appellant   did   not   contest   the   case   before   the   Tribunal.     In   such<\/p>\n
circumstances     Tribunal   did   not   consider   the   question   in   the   light   of   the<\/p>\n
dictum   laid   in   Swaran   Singh’s   case.     Interest   of   justice   warrants   that   an<\/p>\n
opportunity shall   be granted to the parties to let in evidence in support of<\/p>\n
the respective contentions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        6.      The appeal is allowed.  Award passed by Motor Accident Claims<\/p>\n
Tribunal, Moovattupuzha in O.P.(M.V) 566\/1999 is set aside to the extent of<\/p>\n
the liability  of appellant\/first respondent and the permission granted to third<\/p>\n
respondent insurance company to realise the amount from appellant.  Motor<\/p>\n
Accident   Claims   Tribunal   is   directed   to   consider   the   question   whether   the<\/p>\n
violation of the policy condition,  as claimed by third respondent,  is sufficient<\/p>\n
enough to exonerate third respondent  and enable third respondent to realise<\/p>\n
the compensation paid to  first respondent from appellants in the light of the<\/p>\n
decision of the Apex court in Swaran Singh’s case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                Even though learned counsel appearing for appellant challenged<\/p>\n
the quantum of compensation and prayed that the said question may also be<\/p>\n
left opened to be decided by the Tribunal in the circumstances of the case, I<\/p>\n
do not find that it is in the interest of justice to interfere with the quantum of<\/p>\n
 M.A.C.A.NO.1078 OF 2005 (C)<\/p>\n
                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
compensation   awarded.     Appellant   and   third   respondent   are   directed   to<\/p>\n
appear before the Tribunal on 28.3.2007.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                          M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,<\/p>\n
                                                                          JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
bkn<\/p>\n
 M.A.C.A.NO.1078 OF 2005 (C)<\/p>\n
                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
              ORDER ON  I.A.2000\/2005 IN M.A.C.A.NO.1078\/2005<\/p>\n
                                 DISMISSED.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.2.2007                                       SD\/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                \/\/TRUE COPY\/\/\n\n\n\n\n\n                                P.A. TO JUDGE.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Paulose vs Vinu on 12 February, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MACA No. 1078 of 2005() 1. PAULOSE, ATHITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, … Petitioner Vs 1. VINU, S\/O. SIMON, … Respondent 2. SHYJO, S\/O. PAULOSE, 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED For Petitioner :SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) For Respondent :SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN The […]<\/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-55522","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPaulose vs Vinu on 12 February, 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\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Paulose vs Vinu on 12 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-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=\"2007-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-19T16:35:37+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Paulose vs Vinu on 12 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-19T16:35:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1288,\"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\\\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Paulose vs Vinu on 12 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-19T16:35:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Paulose vs Vinu on 12 February, 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":"Paulose vs Vinu on 12 February, 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\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Paulose vs Vinu on 12 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-19T16:35:37+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Paulose vs Vinu on 12 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-19T16:35:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007"},"wordCount":1288,"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\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007","name":"Paulose vs Vinu on 12 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-19T16:35:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulose-vs-vinu-on-12-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Paulose vs Vinu on 12 February, 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\/55522","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=55522"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55522\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55522"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55522"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55522"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}