{"id":151969,"date":"2007-12-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007"},"modified":"2018-11-02T00:29:12","modified_gmt":"2018-11-01T18:59:12","slug":"the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Branch Manager vs Mohammed Fathima on 18 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Branch Manager vs Mohammed Fathima on 18 December, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 18\/12\/2007\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nC.R.P(NPD)(MD)Nos.353 to 364 of 2006\nand\nC.M.A.(MD)Nos.665 to 664 and 675 of 2006\n\nC.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.353 of 2006:\n\nThe Branch Manager,\nThe New India Assurance Company Ltd.,\n3, Main Road, Dindigul.\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.Mohammed Fathima\n2.Amaravathi\n3.The Proprietor,\n  M\/s.Palanimurugan Transport Co. Ltd.,\n  50, Spencers Compound,\n  Dindigul.\n4.The Branch Manager,\n  Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,\n  Salai Road,\n  Dindigul.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents<\/pre>\n
Prayer in C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.353 of 2006<\/p>\n
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
\nagainst the Judgement and Decree dated 28.10.2005 passed in MCOP.No.530 of 2005
\nby the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Principal District Judge, Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellant\t\t\t… Mr.S.Ramachandran\t<\/p>\n
^For Respondent No.1\t\t… Mr.R.Vijayakumar<\/p>\n
For Respondent No.2\t\t… Mrs.N.Juliet Latha
\n\t\t\t    \t      for Mr.K.Dominic Roy Prabhakar<\/p>\n
For Respondent No.3\t\t… No appearance<\/p>\n
For Respondent No.4\t\t… Mr.C.Ramachandran\t<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER
\n\tThe above Civil Revision Petitions and Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are
\nfocussed as against the Common Judgement and Decree dated 28.10.2005 passed in
\nMCOP.Nos.426, 427, 448, 449, 524 to 535, 545, 546, 548, 620, 621, 687 and 699 of
\n2005 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Principal District
\nJudge, Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The Tribunal vide common Judgement dated 26.10.2005 awarded
\ncompensation as under:\n<\/p>\n
Sl.No.\t\t\tM.C.O.P.\t\tClaimants\t\t\tCompensation awarded
\n\t\t\tNos.\n<\/p>\n
1.\t\t\t426 of 2005\t\tSalha Beevi\t\t\tRs.  50,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\t\t427 of 2005\t\t1.Salha Beevi\t\t\tRs.1,64,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t2.Sikkandar\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\t\t448 of 2005\t\tJansi Rani\t\t\tRs.    7,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\t\t449 of 2005\t\tKannamani\t\t\tRs.    6,000\/-\n5. \t\t\t524 of 2005\t\tMinor Bowmitha Banu\t\tRs.    9,000\/-\n6.\t\t\t525 of 2005\t\tMahaboob Beevi\t\t\tRs.  97,000\/-\n<\/pre>\n
7.\t\t\t526 of 2005\t\tMasootha @ Masootha Begam\tRs.  28,100\/-\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\t\t527 of 2005\t\tMinor Prabaharan\t\tRs.  50,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\t\t528 of 2005\t\tJameela Beevi\t\t\tRs.  35,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\t\t529 of 2005\t\t1.Sarrammal (died)\t\tRs.  40,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t2.Abdul Ajees @ Abdulla\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\t\t530 of 2005\t\tMohammed Fathima\t\tRs.    9,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\t\t531 of 2005\t\tAnantha Raj\t\t\tRs.    9,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\t\t532 of 2005\t\tSabeena Banu\t\t\tRs.  44,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\t\t533 of 2005\t\tDilsath @ Dilsath Begam\t\tRs.  10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\t\t534 of 2005\t\tAbitha Beevi @ Abitha  Begam \tRs.  31,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\t\t535 of 2005\t\tMinor Pradeep\t\t\tRs.    6,000\/-\n17.\t\t\t545 of 2005\t\tRajammal\t\t\tRs.    8,000\/-\n18.\t\t\t546 of 2005\t\tAbdullah\t\t\tRs.    6,000\/-\n19.\t\t\t548 of 2005\t\tJayalakshmi\t\t\tRs.    8,000\/-\n20.\t\t\t620 of 2005\t\tRabiya Begam\t\t\tRs.    7,000\/-\n21.\t\t\t621 of 2005\t\tSyed Ammal\t\t\tRs.    9,000\/-\n22. \t\t\t687 of 2005\t\tJohn Williams\t\t\tRs.  60,000\/-\n23.\t\t\t699 of 2005\t\t1.Thanalakshmi\t\t\tRs.4,29,000\/-\n\t\t\t\t\t\t2.Minor Divya\n\t\t\t\t\t\t3.Minor Janani\n\t\t\t\t\t\t4.Minor Perinbaraja\n\t\t\t\t\t\t5.Seeniammal\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t4. All the twelve Civil Revision Petitions and eleven Civil Miscellaneous
\nAppeals have been taken together for hearing as the facts are to the effect that
\nin the van bearing Registration No.TN55\/A.0661 having capacity of 12+1, twenty
\nthree passengers travelled quite against the capacity of the van and it so
\nhappened that the van and the bus got collided and the responsibility was fixed
\non the driver of the van and correspondingly the insurer of the van viz., the
\nNew India Assurance Company Ltd., Dindigul has been ordered to pay the award
\namounts along with the owner of the van jointly and severally.  As such, twenty
\nthree awards have been passed by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said awards passed by the
\nTribunal these Civil Revision Petitions and Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have
\nbeen filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Dindigul.  Hence, all these
\nCivil Revision Petitions and Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been taken
\ntogether for disposal.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The grievance of the appellant viz., the New India Assurance Company
\nLtd., Dindigul is that oblivious of the decision of the  Hon’ble Apex Court in
\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam & Others<\/a> reported in 2007(4)CTC 593,
\nthe Tribunal simply mulcted the appellant\/Insurance Company to pay the
\ncompensation to all the claimants, the full award amount ignoring that the van
\nwas overloaded.  An excerpt from the said decision cited supra would run thus:
\n\t“In spite of the relevant provisions of the statute, insurance still
\nremains a contract between the owner and the insurer and the parties are
\ngoverned by the terms of their contract.  The statute has made Insurance
\nobligatory in public interest and by way of social security and it has also
\nprovided that the insurer would be obliged to fulfil his obligations as imposed
\nby the contract and as overseen by the statute notwithstanding any claim he may
\nhave against the other contracting party, the owner, and meet the claims of
\nthird parties subject to the exceptions provided in Section 149(2) of the Act.
\nBut that does not mean that an insurer is bound to pay amounts outside the
\ncontract of insurance itself or in respect of persons not covered by the
\ncontract at all.  In other words, the insured is covered only to the extent of
\nthe passengers permitted to be insured or directed to be insured by the statute
\nand actually covered by the contract.  The High Court has considered only the
\naspect whether by overloading the vehicle, the owner had put the vehicle to a
\nuse not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used.  This aspect is
\ndifferent from the aspect of determining the extent of the liability of the
\nInsurance Company in respect of the passengers of a stage carriage insured in
\nterms of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act.  We are of the view that the
\nInsurance Company can be made liable only in respect of the number of passengers
\nfor whom Insurance can be taken under the Act and for whom Insurance has been
\ntaken as a fact and not in respect of the other passengers involved in the
\naccident in a case of overloading.\n<\/p>\n
\tThen arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how
\nto quantify the compensation since there is no means of ascertaining who out of
\nthe overloaded passengers constitute the passengers covered by the insurance
\npolicy as permitted to be carried by the permit itself.  As this Court has
\nindicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who
\nare either injured or dead in an accident.  It serves a social purpose.  Keeping
\nthat in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold
\nthat the Insurance Company, in such a case, would be bound to cover the higher
\nof the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts
\nof compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the
\nInsurance Policy.  Illustratively, we may put it like this.  In the case on
\nhand, 42 passengers were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have
\nbeen insured by the Insurance Company, 90 persons have either died or got
\ninjured in the accident.  Awards have been passed for varied sums.  The Tribunal
\nshould take into account, the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and
\ndirect the Insurance Company to deposit that lump sum.  Thus, the liability of
\nthe Insurance Company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the
\n90 passengers.  It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived by the
\nInsurance taken for the passengers of the vehicle, that we hold that the 42
\nawards to be satisfied by the Insurance Company would be the 42 awards in the
\ndescending order starting from the highest of the awards.  In other words, the
\nhigher of the 42 awards will be taken into account and it would be the sum total
\nof those higher 42 awards that would be the amount that the insurance Company
\nwould be liable to deposit.  It will be for the Tribunal thereafter to direct
\ndistribution of the money so deposited by the Insurance Company proportionately
\nto all the claimants, here all the 90, and leave all the claimants to recover
\nthe balance from the owner of the vehicle.  In such cases, it will be necessary
\nfor the Tribunal, even at the initial stage, to make appropriate orders to
\nensure that the amount could be recovered from the owner by ordering attachment
\nor by passing other restrictive orders against the owner so as to ensure the
\nsatisfaction in full of the awards that may be passed ultimately”.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal was justified
\nin mulcting the appellant\/ Insurance Company to pay the entire award amounts
\ncontemplated in the twenty three awards oblivious of the decision of the Hon’ble
\nApex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam & Others<\/a> reported in
\n2007(4)CTC 593?\n<\/p>\n
\t9.On point:\n<\/p>\n
\t    Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The learned counsel for the appellant\/ Insurance Company would
\nreiterate the above position of law.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The learned counsel for the claimants in all fairness would submit
\nthat they are having no contrary argument to put forth to differentiate the
\npresence cases from  the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court.  The learned counsel
\nfor the first respondent\/owner of the vehicle is having no contrary argument for
\nthat matter.  Hence, in these circumstances, the only point which this Court has
\nbeen called upon to decide is as to whether the appellant\/Insurance Company
\nviz., the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Dindigul so to say the insurer of
\nthe van, can be directed to pay the entire award amounts contemplated in the
\ntwenty three awards, even though the said van was overloaded with passengers.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. It is obvious that the appellant\/Insurance Company cannot be ordered
\nto pay the entire award amounts in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble
\nApex Court.  Accordingly, the following order is passed:
\n\tThe appellant\/Insurance Company shall take into account the higher of the
\ntwelve awards out of the twenty three awards and add the total amount of that
\ntwelve higher awards and the appellant\/Insurance Company shall deposit the same
\nin the Tribunal.  The Tribunal shall divide proportionately the said sum among
\nthe awardees in the twenty three cases proportionately and the awardees, in
\nrespect of remaining amounts in the awards are at liberty to proceed as against
\nthe first respondent, viz., the owner of the van by filing Execution Petitions
\nrespective as such. No other points urged before me.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. With the above direction, these Civil Revision Petitions and Civil
\nMiscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed and the awards of the Tribunal are
\nconfirmed, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% as directed by the
\nTribunal.  No costs.  Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
\nclosed.\n<\/p>\n
smn<\/p>\n
To
\nThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum
\nthe Principal District Judge, Dindigul.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Branch Manager vs Mohammed Fathima on 18 December, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18\/12\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P(NPD)(MD)Nos.353 to 364 of 2006 and C.M.A.(MD)Nos.665 to 664 and 675 of 2006 C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.353 of 2006: The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., 3, Main […]<\/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-151969","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Branch Manager vs Mohammed Fathima on 18 December, 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\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Branch Manager vs Mohammed Fathima on 18 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-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=\"2007-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-01T18:59:12+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Branch Manager vs Mohammed Fathima on 18 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-01T18:59:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1557,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007\",\"name\":\"The Branch Manager vs Mohammed Fathima on 18 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-01T18:59:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Branch Manager vs Mohammed Fathima on 18 December, 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":"The Branch Manager vs Mohammed Fathima on 18 December, 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\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Branch Manager vs Mohammed Fathima on 18 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-01T18:59:12+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Branch Manager vs Mohammed Fathima on 18 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-01T18:59:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007"},"wordCount":1557,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007","name":"The Branch Manager vs Mohammed Fathima on 18 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-01T18:59:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mohammed-fathima-on-18-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Branch Manager vs Mohammed Fathima on 18 December, 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\/151969","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=151969"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151969\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}