{"id":78200,"date":"2010-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-06T14:16:26","modified_gmt":"2015-12-06T08:46:26","slug":"tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Tamilkumaran … 3Rd Respondent\/ vs Senthilkumar … Petitioner on 19 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Tamilkumaran … 3Rd Respondent\/ vs Senthilkumar … Petitioner on 19 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 19\/11\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI\nAnd\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.RAJA\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.139 of 2004\t\n\nTamilkumaran\t\t\t\t... 3rd Respondent\/Appellant\n\t\t\t\t\t& 2nd Respondent\n\t\t\t\t\nvs\n\n1.\tSenthilkumar\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\n2.\tM\/s.Annamalai Roadways Corporation\n\t24\/2B, Pudhu Seerapalayam Village\n\tEachenery Post, Kovai\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t... 1st Respondent\/Respondents\n\n3.\tUnited India Insurance Company Ltd.,\n\tDivisional Office-5, Kovai\t\t\t\n\t(Appellant 2 transposed as 3rd respondent vide order dated 9.11.2010\n\tmade \tin CMA (MD).No. 139\/2004.\n\nPRAYER\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles\nAct, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 27th April, 2004 and made in\nMACT O.P.No. 469 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal\n(Chief Judicial Magistrate), Karur.\n***\n\n\n!For Appellant\t     ...  Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai\n^For 1st Respondent  ...  Mr.K.Angayarkanni\n\t\t\t  for M\/s.K.Sukumaran\n\t\t\t\nFor 3rd Respondent   ...  Mr.I.Robert Chandra Kumar\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.Banumathi. J.,)<\/p>\n
 \tBeing aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.27,45,000\/-, the owner
\nof the lorry has preferred this Appeal.  Initially the Appellant as well as the
\nInsurance Company have jointly filed the Appeal.  On memo being filed, the
\nSecond Appellant \/Insurance Company was transposed as the third respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.  The brief facts are that:\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 11.4.2001 at about 00.55 A.M., in Velur to Namakkal Main Road, at Milk
\nChilling Centre, the driver of the lorry bearing the Regn. No. TN-37-Q0790,
\ndrove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner from north to south and
\ndashed against a Maruthi Van bearing Regn.No.TN-47-K-0644 which was driven by
\nthe first respondent from South to North keeping extreme left side of the road
\nand skipping traffic rules.  Due to the accident, the first respondent sustained
\nmultiple grevious injuries.  He sustained following injuries:  Multiple grevious
\ninjuries of major crush injury right hand with amputated index finger.  Multiple
\ngrevious injuries can major in the right hand and also fracture of both bones in
\nright leg.  The criminal case was registered against the lorry driver in crime
\nNo. 108 of 2001 of Velur Police Station. After the accident, the first
\nrespondent\/claimant had taken treatment at Amaravathi Hospital, Karur and
\nthereafter, he was admitted in Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore and taken treatment in
\nvarious spells.  Ten operations were conducted on the claimant.  Alleging that
\nthe accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, the
\nClaimant filed the Claim Petition in MACT O.P.No. 469 of 2001, claiming
\ncompensation of Rs.40,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.  The Insurance Company resisted the claim petition contending that the
\npetition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  According to the
\nInsurance Company, the owner and the insurer of the Maruthi Van are the
\nnecessary parties.  The Insurance Company has also raised objections as to the
\npermanent disability claimed by the claimant and averred that the quantum of
\ncompensation claimed by the claimant is excessive.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.  Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW-1 and Dr.Hari
\nVenkatramani, who treated the claimant was examined as PW-2.  Exs. A-1 to A-20
\nwere marked and no oral evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents.
\nExs. R-1 and R-2 were marked on the side of the appellant and the third
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.  Upon considering oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that
\nthe claimant had valid driving license (Ex. P-8).  Based upon the evidence of
\nPW-1 and Ex. P-1 – FIR and other evidence, the Tribunal held that the lorry
\ndriver was responsible for the accident.  In so far as defence plea that the
\nclaimant also contributed to the accident, the Tribunal held that no rebuttal
\nevidence was adduced by the respondents and on those findings, the Tribunal held
\nthat the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver.
\nObserving that the claimant had sustained 50% disability and that ten operations
\nwere conducted.  The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.27,45,000\/- under
\nvarious heads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t In Rupees<\/p>\n
\t\tIncome Loss\t\t\t:12,00,000
\n\t\tIncome during Treatment\t\t:   50,000
\n\t\tLoss of permanent Disability\t:  4,20,000   (7000 x 12 x 10
\n\t\t\t\t \t\t                multiplier x
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t        50\/100)
\n\t\tLoss of Amenity\t\t\t:  1,00,000
\n\t\tMedical\t\t\t\t:  5,50,000
\n\t\tFuture Medical\t\t\t:  2,00,000
\n\t\tPain & Suffering\t\t:  1,00,000
\n\t\tNourishment\t\t\t:    50,000<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t————-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tTotal\t\t\t        : Rs.27,45,000\/-\n\t\t\t\t\t\t--------------\n\t\tInterest\t\t\t:    9% p.a.\t\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t6.  The Insurance Company as well as the owner of the lorry have filed the
\nAppeal.  As pointed out earlier, on Memo the Insurance Company was transposed as
\nthird respondent.  The learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai,
\nhas contended that the Tribunal misdirected itself in holding that the accident
\nwas only due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and the Tribunal
\noverlooked the fact that the accident was due to the collusion between the
\nMaruthi Van driver by the Claimant and the lorry and as such, the Tribunal
\nshould have held that the claimant also contributed to the accident by his own
\nnegligent driving.  It was further contended that the driver erroneously
\nfastened the liability on the Appellant and the third respondent, Insurance
\nCompany.  It was further argued that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the
\nClaim Petition for not impleading the owner and the insurer of the Maruthi Van
\ndriver by the claimant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t7.  The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and he has clearly spoken about
\nthe accident.  PW-1 has stated that he was driving the Maruthi Van keeping his
\ncorrect direction and that the lorry driving in a rash and negligent manner
\ndashed against the Maruthi van driven by the claimant.  His evidence is
\nsubstantiated by the recitals in Ex. A-1 – FIR.  Since there was a prima facie
\ncase of negligence against the lorry driver, FIR was also registered against the
\nlorry driver. To rebut the evidence of PW-1, the lorry driver was not examined.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.  Even though, the Appellant contends that the claimant, who was driving
\nthe Maruthi Van also contributed to the accident, neither the Appellant nor the
\nthird respondent, Insurance Company adduced any oral evidence to substantiate
\ntheir evidence.  The defence plea of contributory negligence has to be
\nsubstantiated by independent evidence and is not a matter of assumption or
\npresumption. In the absence of any evidence being adduced by the Appellant and
\nthe third respondent, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident was due to the
\nrash and negligent driving of the lorry driver.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.  The main challenge in the Appeal is the quantum of compensation
\nawarded to the claimant.  The learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr.Prabhu
\nRajadurai, has contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of
\nRs.12,00,000\/- for loss of earning power and Rs.4,20,000\/- for permanent
\ndisability  overlooking that loss of earning power is only the consequence of
\npermanent disability.  It was further contended that even without any acceptable
\nevidence, the Tribunal has awarded a huge compensation for future medical
\nexpenses and extra nourishment.  The quantum of compensation  of Rs.1,00,000\/-
\nawarded under “Loss of estate” is assailed on the ground that such head is not
\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.  The claimant sustained multiple crush injuries in right hand with
\namputated index finger and laceration thumb – FPL and digital nerve injury and
\nsubtotal amputation right middle finger, closed fracture shaft lower third right
\nfemur, fracture both bones right leg grade III B with bimalleolar fracture right
\nankle, lacerated wound left knee, lacerated wound right arm.  The injuries
\nsustained by the claimant is elaborated in Ex. P-2, which has been extracted in
\nextenso in the award of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.  After taking first aid treatment in Amaravathi Hospital, Karur, the
\nclaimant was admitted at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore on 11.04.2001 and taken
\ntreatment as in-patient till 11.06.2001.  Thereafter between 2001-2002, the
\nclaimant had taken treatment atleast for five spells. During the period of
\ntreatment as seen from Ex. A-13, ten operations were conducted on the claimant.
\nIn his evidence, PW-1 has stated that even after discharge, he was continuing
\nhis treatment.  Since the claimant had taken treatment during different spells
\nof time, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000\/- towards actual loss of income. The
\nclaimant was taking treatment as in-patient for about 4 -5 months, since he was
\ngetting salary of Rs.7,000\/- per month.  The actual loss of income during the
\nperiod of treatment could be awarded for a period of five months, i.e.,
\nRs.35,000\/- (7000 x 5 = 35,000).\n<\/p>\n
\t12.  Ex. A-13 is the disability certificate of the claimant.  In his
\nevidence, PW-1 has stated that during the period of treatment, he had undergone
\natleast ten operations.  The details of the various operations conducted on the
\nclaimant is elaborated in Ex. A-13.  Steel plates were inserted and skin
\nflatting was done as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\tOP-1:  11.04.2001: Debridement and K-wire fixation of right thumb
\n\t\t\t\t and middle finger, debridement of right leg,
\n\t\t\t fixation of fracture medial malleolus and external
\n\t\t\t fixator application for right leg.\n<\/p>\n
\tOP-2:  14.04.2001: Closed A O Interlock mailing right femur, closed
\n\t\t\t\t sirus nailing of right tibia.\n<\/p>\n
\tOP-3:  16.04.2001: Free latissimus dorsi muscle flap cover right leg<\/p>\n
\tOP-4:  14.05.2001: Groin flap division – inset right hand, debridement
\n\t\t\t\t  transporsitional flap right leg SSG right leg with
\n\t\t\t\t  circumcision<\/p>\n
\tOP-5:  28.05.2001:  Debridement and reinset of groin flap right hand<\/p>\n
\tOP-6:  27.09.2001:  Incisions and drainage abscess left leg<\/p>\n
\tOP-7:  08.10.2001:  Implant removal right leg<\/p>\n
\tOP-8:  17.10.2001:  EDP index transfer to radial aspect of base of PPx
\n\t\t\t\t   of thumb through FU pulley using FDS index as
\n\t\t\t  tendon graft, ERCL transfer to ulnar aspect of
\n\t\t\t base of PPx routed through the third and fourth
\n\t\t MC, using palmaris longus as tendon graft<\/p>\n
\tOP-9:  13.02.2002:  Arthrodesis of PIP joint of right M F with
\n\t\t\t\t contracture release and full thickness graft in
\n\t\t\t\t palm.\n<\/p>\n
\tOP-10: 07.09.2002: Malleolar screws removal – right ankle.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.  The nature of treatment given to the claimant is elaborated in Ex. A-\n<\/p>\n
6.  Exs. A-3 and A-4 are the medical bills and payment of charges to the
\nhospital.  Based on Exs. A-3 and A-4, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,45,000\/-
\ntowards medical expenses, which the Tribunal has rounded to Rs.5,50,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.  Future medical expenses – In  his evidence, PW-1 has stated that
\nsteel plates were inserted in his right leg and he needs further treatment in
\nhis right hand and also right leg.  PW-1 has further stated that the steel
\nplates inserted in the right leg has to be removed by undergoing further
\noperation.  PW-2, Dr.Hari Venkatramani, who treated the claimant has also stated
\nthat if the claimant undergoes further operations in his right leg, there would
\nbe much improvement.  PW-1 has stated that in future medical expenses, an amount
\nof compensation of Rs.2,00,000\/- is to be awarded.  Whereas PW-2, Dr.Hari
\nVenkatramani  has stated that the claimant would require Rs.20,000\/- for future
\nmedical expenses.  The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000\/- for future medical
\nexpenses.  Excepting the evidence of PW-1, we do not find any basis for awarding
\nRs.2,00,000\/- for future medical expenses.  Of-course, the claimant had
\nundergone number of operations.  It appears that steel plates have been inserted
\nin his right leg.  Having regard to the evidence of PW-2, the quantum of
\ncompensation of Rs.2,00,000\/- awarded for future medical expenses is reduced to
\nRs.75,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.  Permanent disability and loss of earning power – From the evidence of
\nPws-1 and 2 and from Ex. A-13, it is seen that inspite of intensive treatment
\nand number of operations, he has lost his right index finger.  Ex. A-13, PW -2,
\nDr.Hari Venkatramani has stated that the Claimant has lost right index finger
\nand near total loss of right thumb which are reconstructed and he has difficulty
\nin holding any object with the right hand.  He has a weak grip in the right
\nhand.  He has severe swelling and stiffness of right ankle.  After examining the
\nclaimant, PW-2 assessed the permanent partial disability of claimant’s right
\nupper limb to the extent of 30% and 20% to his right lower limb.  Prior to the
\naccident, the Claimant was working partner in Nayagara International and was
\ngetting salary of Rs.7,000\/- per month.  In his evidence, the claimant has
\nstated due to amputation of right index finger, he was unable to do any work and
\ndue to loss of right thumb, which are re-constructed, he is unable to write and
\nhold anything.  The claimant has further stated that he is not in a position to
\neat with hands and that his right upper limb is permanently disabled.  The
\nclaimant has further stated that he is unable to continue as the working partner
\nin  Nayagara International.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.  PW-2,  Dr.Hari Venkatramani, has also stated that the claimant cannot
\nwrite and cannot hold any objects with his right hand.  We have also perused Ex.
\nA-12, photos of the claimant.  Of-course, the physical frame of the claimant
\nhave been shattered.  When the physical frame has been shattered, it is the duty
\nof the Tribunals \/ Courts to award just and reasonable compensation to
\ncompensate the injured.  The purpose of compensation is only to compensate and
\nnot to overcompensate.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.  The Tribunal has awarded an astonishing figure of Rs.12,00,000\/- for
\nloss of income and another Rs.4,20,000\/- for permanent disability.  Ex. A-10 is
\nthe income Tax returns of the claimant.  It was stated that for the year 2001 –
\n2002, the claimant was getting income of Rs.98,000\/- and for the year 2002-2003,
\nthe claimant was getting income of Rs.42,340\/-.  Referring to Ex. A-10, the
\nTribunal has observed that because of the accident, the claimant’s income was
\nreduced and therefore, the Tribunal proceeded under the footing that there was
\nloss of income of Rs.56,000\/- (Rs.98,000 – Rs.42,000 = Rs.56,000).  Observing
\nthat the claimant would have worked for another 22 years, the Tribunal proceeded
\nto award Rs.12,00,000\/- (Rs.56,000 x 22 years = Rs.12,00,000) for loss  of
\nincome \/ loss of earning power.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.  Apart from awarding huge amount of compensation for loss of earnings,
\nthe Tribunal has also proceeded to award compensation under different head
\n“permanent disability”.  Taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000\/-
\nand the 50% permanent disability and adopting multiplier 10, the Tribunal
\nproceeded to award Rs.4,20,000\/- for permanent disability.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.  What is payable is just compensation.  Tribunal has to determine the
\nclaim bearing in mind and statutory mandate that what is payable is just
\ncompensation and it cannot be a bonanza.  In 1991 – 1 LW 208 (Helen C. Rebello
\nV. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation), the Supreme Court<\/a> observed
\nthat  the tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is
\nrequired to make an award determining the amount of compensation which to it
\nappears to be ‘just’.  It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of
\nlimbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales.  Bodily injury is nothing
\nbut a deprivation which entitles the claimant to damages.  The quantum of
\ndamages fixed should be in accordance with the injury.  An injury may bring
\nabout many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure
\nand many such consequential losses.  A person becomes entitled to damages for
\nmental and physical impairment, his or her life may have been shortened or that
\nhe or she cannot enjoy life, which has been curtailed because of physical
\nhandicap.  The normal expectation of life is  impaired.  But at the same time it
\nhas to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall
\nfor the victim.  Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation
\nmust be “just” and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same
\nshould not be a pittance.  The Courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the
\nvarious factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just.
\nWhat would be ‘just’ compensation is a vexed question.  There can be no golden
\nrule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb.
\nMeasure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations.
\nIt would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending
\npeculiar or special features, if any.  Every method or mode adopted for
\nassessing compensation has to be considered in the background of ‘just’
\ncompensation which is the pivotal consideration.  Though by the use of the
\nexpression “which appears to it to be just”, a wide discretion is vested on the
\ntribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious
\napproach and not the outcome of whims, guesses and arbitrariness.  The
\nexpression “just” denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-
\narbitrariness.”\n<\/p>\n
\t20.  Insofar as compensation for “permanent disability” and compensation
\nfor “loss of earning power”, Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,20,000\/- and
\nRs.12,00,000\/- respectively.  In 2006-3-LW 1025 (Cholan Roadways Corpn. Ltd.
\nRep. By Managing Director, Kumbakonam v. Ahmed Thambi and others<\/a>), Full Bench of
\nthis Court has held that there cannot be two separate head of compensation
\nawarded for “loss of earning power” and “permanent disability”.  Holding that
\nwhen the loss of “earning capacity” is possible, loss of “permanent disability”
\nneed not be itemised, in paragraph (19), the Full Bench has held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“19.  In order to avoid any future confusion and to bring more clarity and
\ntransparency in the award of damages, it is necessary that the tribunal, while
\nawarding damages, should itemise the award under each of the head namely,
\npecuniary losses and non-pecuniary losses.  In the non-pecuniary losses the
\ntribunal shall consider a) pain and suffering, b) loss of amenity, c) loss of
\nexpectation of life, hardship, mental stress, etc; d) loss of prospect of
\nmarriage and under the head pecuniary loses, the tribunal shall consider loss of
\nearning capacity and loss of future earnings as one component apart from medical
\nand other expenses and loss of earning, if any from the date of accident till
\nthe date of trial.  When loss of earning capacity is compensated as also the
\nnon-pecuniary losses under (a) to (d), permanent disability need not be
\nseparately itemised.”\n<\/p>\n
\tApplying the ratio of the decision of Full Bench of this Court, we are of
\nthe view that the compensation awarded under two different heads – compensation
\nfor “loss of earning power” and compensation for “permanent disability” cannot
\nbe maintained.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.  Multiplier method – The point falling for consideration is as to the
\nquantum of compensation to be awarded for “permanent disability” and “loss of
\nearning power”.  As we pointed out earlier, claimant has sustained 50%
\ndisability.  At the time of accident, claimant was working as the working
\npartner in Nayagara International and drawing salary of Rs.7,000\/- per month.
\nEx. A-10 is the income tax returns of the claimant.  As pointed out earlier, for
\nthe year 2001-2002, claimant was getting annual income of Rs.98,000\/-.  In his
\nevidence, claimant has stated that he has been getting Rs.7,000\/- as salary from
\nNayagara International.  The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that
\nthe income of the claimant has to be taken as Rs.5,000\/- per month.  Having
\nregard to the evidence of PW-1 and Ex. A-10, the Tribunal has taken the monthly
\nincome of Rs.7,000\/- per month and the same is maintained.  At the time of
\naccident, claimant was aged 38 years.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.\tIn considering the quantum of compensation to be awarded for
\n“permanent disability” in appropriate cases, Court could adopt multiplier
\nmethod.  In 2005 (1) CTC 38 (United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Tiruchengode v.
\nVeluchamy and<\/a> another), the Division Bench of this Court, in paragraph (11) has
\nlaid down the principles governing assessment of damages in personal injury
\ncases.\n<\/p>\n
\t“11.  The following principles emerge from the above discussion:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)  In all case of injury or permanent disablement “multiplier method”
\ncannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning
\npower.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)  It depends upon various factors such as nature and extent of
\ndisablement, avocation of the injured and whether it would affect his employment
\nor earning power etc., and if so, to what extent?\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)  (1)  If there is categorical evidence that because of injury and
\nconsequential disability, the injured lost his employment or avocation
\ncompletely and has to be idle till the rest of his life, in that event loss of
\nincome or earning may be ascertained by applying “multiplier method” as provided
\nunder Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)  even if so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of fatal
\ncases as provided under the schedule.  If there is no amputation and if there is
\nevidence to show that there is likelihood of reduction or improvement in future
\nyears, lesser period may be adopted for ascertainment of loss of income.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d)  Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of
\nemployment being attended by the injured at the time of accident.\n<\/p>\n
\tBecause of loss of index finger and re-construction of right thumb, the
\nright hand of the claimant is totally affected.  That apart, the right leg of
\nthe claimant is also dis-figured and he has great difficulty in walking. Since
\nthe physical frame of the claimant has been shattered and having regard to the
\ngravity of injuries, in the instant case it would be appropriate to adopt the
\nmultiplier method to award compensation for permanent disability and loss of
\nearning power.  Applying the ratio of the above decision since at the time of
\naccident, the claimant was aged 38 years, as per the Second Schedule to M. V.
\nAct, multiplier “16” is adopted.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.\tPersonal Injury Cases Deduction of one- third for personal expenses
\nwhether necessary? – Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company
\nsubmitted that while adopting multiplier method for determining the quantum of
\ncompensation for “permanent disability”, Court has to deduct 1\/3rd amount for
\npersonal expenses.  Drawing our attention of 2009 (2) CTC 87 (Oriental Insurance
\nCo. Ltd., V. Ram Prasad Varma and others<\/a>), learned counsel for the Appellant
\ncontended that in the said case because of amputation of both legs and 100%
\ndisability, the Supreme Court observed that 1\/3rd amount need not be deducted.
\nLearned counsel for the Appellant further contended that in the instant case,
\nsince the claimant is said to have sustained only 50% of disability while
\nawarding compensation for permanent disability, 1\/3 rd deduction has to be made
\nfor personal expenses.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.  In 2009 (2) CTC 87 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., V. Ram Prasad Varma
\nand others<\/a>), the Supreme Court has considered the question of deduction towards
\npersonal expenditure in personal injury cases.  Observing that when a person
\nalthough alive, but when he  is not in a position to move and even for every
\nsmall thing he has to depend upon others, direction to deduct 1\/3rd of the
\namount from his total income need not always be insisted upon.  In Paragraph
\n(11) of the Judgment, the Supreme Court held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“11.  One-third amount is deducted from computation of compensation from
\nthe total income on the premise that some expenses were necessary for one’s  own
\nsurvival. Incidentally, we may notice that in the note appended to the Second
\nSchedule, the amount of compensation arrived in the case of fatal accident
\nclaims is required to be reduced by one-third in consideration of the expenses
\nwhich the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been
\nalive.  A person, although alive, but when he is not in a position to move and
\neven for every small thing he has to depend upon the services of another, in our
\nopinion, a direction to deduct 1\/3rd of the amount from his total income need
\nnot always be insisted upon.”\n<\/p>\n
\t25.\tIn personal injury cases, deduction of one-third amount from the
\ntotal income would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
\nIn appropriate cases, where claimant has sustained multiple injuries and has
\nsuffered substantial disability and when he is not in a position to carry on his
\nnormal routine, deduction of one-third amount from his total income may not be
\nappropriate.  In the case on hand, as discussed earlier, claimant has suffered
\n50% disability and he is not in a position to use his right hand and he is to
\ndepend on others for writing, eating and to carry on his normal routine.\tWe
\nhave also seen Ex.A-12 photographs from which it is seen that claimant has great
\ndifficulty even for standing and his right hand and right leg as disfigured and
\npermanently partially disabled.  Having regard to the nature of injuries
\nsustained by the claimant and the percentage of disability suffered by him, in
\nour considered view that in this case deduction of one-third amount from the
\nincome need not be made.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.  Taking the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.7,000\/- and adopting
\nmultiplier “16” and the permanent disability  at 50%, compensation for
\n“permanent disability\/ loss of earning power” is calculated at Rs.6,72,000\/-
\n(Rs.7,000 x 12 x 16 x 50\/100 = Rs.6,72,000\/-).\n<\/p>\n
\t27.\tOther heads – The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.1,00,000\/- for pain
\nand suffering.  As pointed out earlier, claimant has sustained multiple crush
\ninjury and had taken treatment during various spells on time.  Having regard to
\nthe injuries and duration of treatment, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000\/-
\nawarded for pain and suffering is maintained.  The quantum of compensation of
\nRs.50,000\/- awarded for actual loss of income is reduced to Rs.35,000\/-.  In so
\nfar as the compensation for transport hospital, claimant has produced Ex. A-5
\nfor proving the transport expenses.  Based upon A-5, Tribunal has awarded
\ncompensation of Rs.75,000\/- for transport hospital and the same is maintained.\n<\/p>\n
\t28.  Extra Nourishment – The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000\/- and the same
\nis reduced to Rs.25,000\/-.  The Tribunal has also proceeded to award
\nRs.1,00,000\/- for loss of estate in case of personal injury cases.  There cannot
\nbe any estate and therefore, the same is deleted.  As pointed out earlier, for
\nfuture medical expenses, Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000\/- and the same is
\nreduced to Rs.50,000\/-.  The claimant has to be with dis-figured right hand and
\nthe right leg.  Through out his life, claimant is disabled from using his right
\nhand, Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000\/- for “Loss of amenities and the same is
\nreduced to Rs.25,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t29.  In modification, the compensation of Rs.27,45,000\/- awarded by the
\nTribunal is reduced to Rs.15,82,000\/- as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\tLoss of earning power\t\t:\tRs.6,72,000\/-
\n\t\tMedical expenses\t\t:\tRs.5,50,000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tFuture medical expenses\t\t:\tRs.75,000\/-
\n\t\tLoss of income during the
\n\t\tperiod of treatment\t\t:\tRs. 35,000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tLoss of amenities\t\t:\tRs.  50,000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tPain and Suffering\t\t:\tRs.1,00,000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tExtra Nourishment\t\t:\tRs.   25,000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tTransport\t\t\t:\tRs.   75,000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t—————
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tTotal\tRs.15,82,000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t—————–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\t30.\tIn so far as interest, Tribunal awarded interest at 9%  p.a., from
\nthe date of filing of Claim Petition and the rate of interest awarded by
\nTribunal is on higher side.  As held by the Supreme Court in S.Rajapriya’s case
\n(2005 AIR SCW 2542), interest is reduced to 7.5% from the date of filing of
\npetition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t31.\tIn the result, order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief
\nJudicial Magistrate), Karur in MACT O.P.No. 469 of 2001 dated 27.04.2004 is
\nmodified and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.  No costs in this
\nC.M.A.\n<\/p>\n
\tCompensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.15,82,000\/- which is
\npayable with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of filing of Claim
\nPetition.  The Insurance Company has already deposited 50% of the compensation
\namount along with accrued interest.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe claimant is said to have withdrawn 50% of the deposited amount (ie.,
\n25% of the total compensation amount).  The Appellant is directed to deposit the
\nbalance amount along with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., within a
\nperiod of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.  On
\nsuch deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw entire modified compensation
\namount along with accrued interest.\n<\/p>\n
vsg<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate)
\nKarur<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Tamilkumaran … 3Rd Respondent\/ vs Senthilkumar … Petitioner on 19 November, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19\/11\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI And THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.RAJA C.M.A.(MD)No.139 of 2004 Tamilkumaran … 3rd Respondent\/Appellant & 2nd Respondent vs 1. Senthilkumar … Petitioner 2. M\/s.Annamalai Roadways 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-78200","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTamilkumaran ... 3Rd Respondent\/ vs Senthilkumar ... Petitioner on 19 November, 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\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tamilkumaran ... 3Rd Respondent\/ vs Senthilkumar ... Petitioner on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-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=\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-06T08:46:26+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tamilkumaran … 3Rd Respondent\\\/ vs Senthilkumar … Petitioner on 19 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-06T08:46:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4395,\"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\\\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Tamilkumaran ... 3Rd Respondent\\\/ vs Senthilkumar ... Petitioner on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-06T08:46:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tamilkumaran … 3Rd Respondent\\\/ vs Senthilkumar … Petitioner on 19 November, 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":"Tamilkumaran ... 3Rd Respondent\/ vs Senthilkumar ... Petitioner on 19 November, 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\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tamilkumaran ... 3Rd Respondent\/ vs Senthilkumar ... Petitioner on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-06T08:46:26+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tamilkumaran … 3Rd Respondent\/ vs Senthilkumar … Petitioner on 19 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-06T08:46:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010"},"wordCount":4395,"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\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010","name":"Tamilkumaran ... 3Rd Respondent\/ vs Senthilkumar ... Petitioner on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-06T08:46:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilkumaran-3rd-respondent-vs-senthilkumar-petitioner-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tamilkumaran … 3Rd Respondent\/ vs Senthilkumar … Petitioner on 19 November, 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\/78200","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=78200"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78200\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78200"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78200"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78200"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}