{"id":87698,"date":"2008-03-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008"},"modified":"2016-05-07T12:38:40","modified_gmt":"2016-05-07T07:08:40","slug":"ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Tamil Nadu State Transport vs Princelin Mathew on 19 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S.Tamil Nadu State Transport vs Princelin Mathew on 19 March, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 19\/03\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nC.M.A.Nos.784 to 787 of 2001\n\nM\/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport\nCorporation (Madurai - Division - I)\nLtd., rep. by its Managing Director,\nBye Pass Road, Madurai - 625 010.\n(Cause title accepted as per order\n dated 25.04.2001 passed in\n C.M.P.No.7137 of 2001\n\n\t\t\t \t.. Appellant in all C.M.As.\nVs\n\nPrincelin Mathew\n(Respondent declared as\nmajor and discharged the\nfather from the guardianship\nas per order dated 18.09.2001\npassed in C.M.P.No.14576 of 2001)\n\n\t \t\t        .. Respondent in C.M.A.No.784 of 2001\n\nM.J.Mathai\t \t\t.. Respondent in C.M.A.No.785 of 2001\n\nMary Kutty Mathai\n(Respondent name amended as per order dated 18.09.2001 passed in C.M.P.No.14577\nof 2001)\n\t\t\t \t.. Respondent in C.M.A.No.786 of 2001\n\nP.Pandi\t\t \t\t.. Respondent in C.M.A.No.787 of 2001\t\n\n\n\nPrayer\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles\nAct, 1988, against the common Judgement and Decrees dated 01.02.1999 passed in\nM.C.O.P.Nos.1213, 1214, 1219 of 1994 and 785 of 2001 by the learned Motor\nAccidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the IV Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.\n\n!For Appellant\nin all C.M.As.\t\t... Mr.P.Thilak Kumar\n^For Respondent No.3\nin all C.M.As.\t\t... Mr.T.Balaji\n\t\n\n:COMMON JUDGMENT\n\n\tThese appeals are focussed as against the common Judgement and Decrees\ndated 01.02.1999 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1213, 1214, 1219 of 1994 and 785 of 2001\nby the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the IV Additional Subordinate\nJudge, Madurai.\n\n\t2. Heard both sides.\n\n\t3. The Tribunal vide Judgement dated 01.02.1999 awarded compensation as\nfollows:\n\n\n(i)In M.C.O.P.No.1213 of 1994 (C.M.A.No.784 of 2001):\n\tFor disability \t\t-Rs.30,000.00\n\tFor pain and sufferings-Rs. 5,000.00\n\tFor extra nourishment\n\tand for transportation\t-Rs. 5,000.00\t\t\n\t\t\t\t-------------\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.40,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)In M.C.O.P.No.54 of 1995 (C.M.A.No.785 of 2001):<br \/>\n\tFor simple injuries\t-Rs. 9,000.00<br \/>\n\tFor pain and sufferings -Rs. 1,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.10,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)In M.C.O.P.No.1214 of 1994 (C.M.A.No.786 of 2001):\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor grievous injury\t-Rs.35,000.00<br \/>\n\tFor pain and sufferings -Rs. 5,000.00<br \/>\n\tFor extra nourishment<br \/>\n\tand for transportation\t-Rs. 5,000.00<br \/>\n\tFor loss of amenities\t-Rs.10,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.55,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv)In M.C.O.P.No.1219 of 1994 (C.M.A.No.787 of 2001):<br \/>\n\tFor grievous injury\t-Rs.25,000.00<br \/>\n\tFor pain and sufferings -Rs. 5,000.00<br \/>\n\tFor extra nourishment<br \/>\n\tand for transportation\t-Rs. 5,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.35,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. These civil miscellaneous appeals have arisen out of the common<br \/>\nJudgment dated 01.02.1999 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1213, 1214, 1219 of 1994 and 54<br \/>\nof 1995 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the IV Additional<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The challenge in these appeals is relating to the quantum of<br \/>\ncompensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal without<br \/>\nadhering to any norms awarded excessive compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded &#8216;just<br \/>\ncompensation&#8217;?\n<\/p>\n<p>7.The point:\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)C.M.A.No.784 of 2001:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe challenge in this appeal is relating to the quantum of compensation<br \/>\nawarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.40,000\/- (Rupees forty thousand only)<br \/>\nrelating to Princelin Mathew, a girl of sixteen years old, who sustained 14%<br \/>\npermanent disability.  As per Ex.A6, the wound certificate, she sustained the<br \/>\nfollowing injuries:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;(i) Contusion swelling (Rt) arm\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) Black eye present (Rt)\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) Chest pain\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) Abrasion (Rt) chest 5 x 5 cm&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. In Ex.A7, the treatment particulars, the doctor set out the following:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;Patient was admitted with H\/O. RTA today with tenderness over the chest<br \/>\nboth sides.  x-ray chest showed Ist Rib both sides.  Patient was seen by<br \/>\northopaedician.  And also patient was seen by ENT Surgeon and opthalmologist and<br \/>\nreported as NIL ENT and echnew CT scan brain and cervical spine rule out any<br \/>\ninternal hge and any Bonelesion and it was also normal.  Patient was put on<br \/>\ncomplete bed rest, artibiotics, analgesics and vitamins.  With all above<br \/>\ntreatment she was better and discharged on 16.7.1994.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. As such, considering the medical evidence, the Tribunal assessed the<br \/>\npermanent disability at 14% and awarded a sum of Rs.30,000\/- (Rupees thirty<br \/>\nthousand only) for the grievous injury sustained by the claimant.  Apparently in<br \/>\nmy opinion, such awarding the sum of Rs.30,000\/- (Rupees thirty thousand only)<br \/>\ntowards permanent disability, which I consider as the one awarded towards loss<br \/>\nof earning capacity, need not be interfered with as the young girl of sixteen<br \/>\nyears old, sustained severe injuries on her chest.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Towards pain and sufferings a sum of Rs.5000\/- (Rupees five thousand<br \/>\nonly) and towards extra nourishment and transportation a sum of Rs.5000\/-<br \/>\n(Rupees five thousand only) were awarded.  As such, the total compensation<br \/>\nawarded by the Tribunal in my opinion is found to be proper and no interference<br \/>\nis required.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.C.M.A.No.785 of 2001:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe challenge in this appeal is relating to the quantum of compensation<br \/>\nawarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten thousand only)<br \/>\nrelating to M.J.Mathai, a man of forty nine years old, who sustained injuries on<br \/>\nhis forehead and ear.  As per Ex.A13, the wound certificate, he sustained the<br \/>\nfollowing injuries:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;(i) Laceration (Lt) forehead 3 x 2 c.m.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) Abrasion below W.No.1 2 x 2 c.m.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) Swelling (Rt) ear present&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. In Ex.A14, the treatment particulars, the doctor set out the<br \/>\nfollowing:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Patient was admitted with H\/O RTA today and sustained multiple injuries.<br \/>\nThe injuries over the face and nose were sutured with prolene.  On routine<br \/>\nexamination he was found to be Diabetic and HT for which physical opinion was<br \/>\nobtained and he advised anti Hypertensive (T.Atelol,T.Envas) and oral anti<br \/>\ndiabetics (T.Daonel).  Patient was also put on antibiotic, analgesic and<br \/>\nvitamins.  Meanwhile patient had mild pain and deafness left ear.  Patient was<br \/>\nseen by ENT surgeon and he advised X-ray both mastoid and audiogram and it was<br \/>\nnormal.  On 6th day sutures were removed and would was healed well&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. As such, considering the medical evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum<br \/>\nof Rs.9,000\/- (Rupees nine thousand only) for the simple injury sustained by the<br \/>\nclaimant, which requires no interference. Towards pain and sufferings a sum of<br \/>\nRs.1000\/- (Rupees one thousand only) was also awarded.  As such, the<br \/>\ncompensation awarded by the Tribunal in my opinion is found to be proper and no<br \/>\ninterference is required.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.C.M.A.No.787 of 2001:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe challenge in this appeal is relating to the quantum of compensation<br \/>\nawarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.35,000\/- (Rupees thirty five thousand<br \/>\nonly) relating to P.Pandi, a man of twenty five years old, who sustained 20%<br \/>\nloss of earning capacity.  The perusal of Ex.A11, the wound certificate, would<br \/>\nreveal that the claimant sustained the following injuries:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;(i) Contusion swelling (Lt) II III IV finger;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) Contusion (Rt) decloid regim 2 x 2 c.m.&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. P.W.5, Doctor M.Chidambaram, who issued Ex.A20, the disability<br \/>\ncertificate, assessed the quantum of disability at 14%, with reference to<br \/>\nEx.A11, the would certificate.  The perusal of Ex.A8 and A18 would demonstrate<br \/>\nthat the claimant sustained severe injuries and I could see no reason to<br \/>\ndisagree with the assessment of 14% permanent disability which represents the<br \/>\nloss of earning capacity, arrived at by the Tribunal, which correctly awarded a<br \/>\nsum of Rs.25,000\/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) for it, taking into<br \/>\naccount, the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the claimant and hence no<br \/>\ninterference is required.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. Towards pain and sufferings a sum of Rs.5000\/- (Rupees five thousand<br \/>\nonly) and towards extra nourishment and transportation a sum of Rs.5000\/-<br \/>\n(Rupees five thousand only), were awarded, which require no interference in view<br \/>\nof the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant.  As such, the<br \/>\ncompensation awarded by the Tribunal in my opinion is found to be proper which<br \/>\nshould be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20. The Tribunal awarded 12% interest p.a., hence, it is reduced to 7.5%<br \/>\nin commensurate with the decisions of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State<br \/>\nTransport Corporation Ltd. vs.S.Rajapriya &amp; Others reported in 2005(2)TAC 297 SC<br \/>\nand in <a href=\"\/doc\/1332665\/\">New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie and<\/a> another reported in<br \/>\n2006(1)TAC 1 (SC).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21. I, therefore do not find any merit in these Appeals and accordingly<br \/>\nthe appeals are dismissed. The awards of the Tribunal are confirmed, however the<br \/>\ncompensation amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date<br \/>\nof M.C.O.Ps. till deposit. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>smn<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum<br \/>\nthe IV Additional Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nMadurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M\/S.Tamil Nadu State Transport vs Princelin Mathew on 19 March, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19\/03\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.Nos.784 to 787 of 2001 M\/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai &#8211; Division &#8211; I) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Bye Pass Road, Madurai &#8211; [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-87698","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S.Tamil Nadu State Transport vs Princelin Mathew on 19 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Tamil Nadu State Transport vs Princelin Mathew on 19 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-07T07:08:40+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\\\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Tamil Nadu State Transport vs Princelin Mathew on 19 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-07T07:08:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1138,\"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\\\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Tamil Nadu State Transport vs Princelin Mathew on 19 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-07T07:08:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Tamil Nadu State Transport vs Princelin Mathew on 19 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S.Tamil Nadu State Transport vs Princelin Mathew on 19 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Tamil Nadu State Transport vs Princelin Mathew on 19 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-07T07:08:40+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\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Tamil Nadu State Transport vs Princelin Mathew on 19 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-07T07:08:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008"},"wordCount":1138,"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\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008","name":"M\/S.Tamil Nadu State Transport vs Princelin Mathew on 19 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-07T07:08:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tamil-nadu-state-transport-vs-princelin-mathew-on-19-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Tamil Nadu State Transport vs Princelin Mathew on 19 March, 2008"}]},{"@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\/87698","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=87698"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87698\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=87698"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=87698"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=87698"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}