{"id":160605,"date":"2007-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007"},"modified":"2017-02-04T08:03:25","modified_gmt":"2017-02-04T02:33:25","slug":"the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Branch Manager vs Mrs.Kaaliathaal on 1 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Branch Manager vs Mrs.Kaaliathaal on 1 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED :01\/03\/2007\n\nCORAM :\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR\n\nC.M.A.(MD).No.1185 of 2006\nand\nM.P.(MD).Nos.2 of 2006 & 3 of 2007\n\nThe Branch Manager,\nUnited India Insurance Company Limited,\nDharapuram.\t\t\t\t... Appellant\n\nvs.\n\n1. Mrs.Kaaliathaal\n2. Mrs.Rukumani\n3. Mrs.Sathiyabama\n4. P.Kuppuchamy\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\t\n\nPrayer\n\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the\norder and decree dated 17.11.2005 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.235 of 2004 on the file\nof Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Palani.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t: Mr.S.Ramachandran\n\n^For RR 1 to 3\t\t: Mr.J.Lawrance\n\t\t\t  For Mr.M.Abdul Nabi\nFor R4\t\t\t: No appearance\n\n\t\t\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tMother of the respondents died in a road accident which occurred on
\n1.1.2004.  Married daughters claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000\/-. The
\nTribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, awarded  compensation of
\nRs.2,69,000\/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim.
\nAggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal that the married daughters are entitled
\nto claim compensation and the application of multiplier, the Insurance Company
\nhas preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Heard Mr.S.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the appellant and
\nMr.J.Lawrance, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The main contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the
\nclaimants are married daughters, they are living with their husbands and
\ntherefore, they are not dependants of the deceased and claim compensation for
\nthe death of their mother. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted
\nthat the Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at
\nRs.2,100\/- in the absence of any proof and the application of multiplier “15” is
\non the higher side.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. In support of his contention that the respondents, married daughters
\nare not dependants of the deceased, learned counsel for the appellant cited the
\nfollowing decisions; New India Assurance Company Limited V. Pedada Prabhavathi
\nreported in 1998 ACJ 615, Shiv Kumar V. Raj Kumar reported in 1999 ACJ 1417, and
\nManjuri Bera V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in 2005 ACJ 1622.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The first respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and has deposed that
\nafter the death of their father, children were brought up by the deceased and
\nthat their marriages were also solemnised with the income of the deceased. She
\nhas further deposed that the deceased was an Agricultural Coolie, aged 45 years,
\nearning Rs.3000\/- per month at the time of death. Placing reliance on the
\nevidence of the respondent, that after marriage, the claimants are living
\nseparately with their respective families and they have separate Family Ration
\ncards, wherein the name of the deceased (mother) was not mentioned, learned
\ncounsel for the appellant submitted that there is no positive evidence to prove
\nthat the claimants (married daughters) were depending on the income of the
\ndeceased and under such circumstances, the Tribunal has erred in awarding
\ncompensation to them.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
\nafter the demise of the father, the claimants were brought up by the deceased,
\ntheir marriages were solemnised with the sole income of the deceased and they
\nhave lost of her savings and estate. He further submitted that Section 166 of
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act does not speak of dependants and as  legal
\nrepresentatives of the deceased, they are entitled to claim compensation
\nirrespective of the fact whether they are dependants or not.  He further
\nsubmitted that in the absence of Class I heirs, married daughters are entitled
\nto claim compensation, even though they are living separately. In support of his
\ncontention, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the following
\ndecisions in United India Insurance Company Limited V. Kasiammal<\/a> reported in
\n1997 (III) CTC 346,  Gafaran V. Tilakraj Kapur reported in 2005 ACJ 1711 and New
\nIndia Assurance Company Limited V. Ramya Raghavan reported in 2006 ACJ 2347.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The decisions relied on by the counsel for the appellant are examined
\nin brief.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Following the decisions rendered earlier, the Andra Pradesh High Court
\nin New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pedada Prabhavathi and others reported
\nin1998 ACJ 615, held that the married daughter of the deceased is not entitled
\nto compensation along with widow and children of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in 1999 ACJ 1417 (cited supra),
\nconsidered two separate claim petitions filed under Section 166 of Motor
\nVehicles Act by three sons and two married daughters claiming compensation for
\nthe death of their parents. The High Court confirmed the decision of the
\nTribunal that though married daughters, Class I heirs under the Hindu Succession
\nAct, are entitled to share of a person dying intestate, they cannot be said to
\nbe legal representatives\/dependants of the deceased, as they are dependants on
\ntheir respective husbands after marriage. The Tribunal further observed that the
\ndependency is with reference to the pecuniary loss and not love and affection.
\nThe Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in 2005 ACJ 1622 (cited supra) in
\nparagraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment, held that<\/p>\n
“4. …. Question of loss of association would arise only when it is found that
\nthe person claiming loss of association was dependent on the victim. Unless this
\ndependence is found, there is no question of compensation for loss of
\nassociation. Even if we accept the proposition that without dependence, one is
\nentitled to compensation on account of loss of association, then also it has to
\nbe proved that the victim was in association with the claimant.\n<\/p>\n
5. Thus, dependency is a prima facie factor for obtaining compensation even
\nthough one may be the legal representative of the victim.  Unless the dependency
\nis proved, the factors relating to the compensation would not be relevant.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The question whether married son living separately and not dependant
\non the deceased can maintain a claim petition came up for consideration before
\nthis Court in United India Insurance Company V. Kasiammal<\/a> reported in 1997 (III)
\nCTC 346. In paragraph 15, the court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“15… The dependency of the legal representatives is a question to be
\nconsidered and does no mean only the dependants can claim compensation. The
\ncompensation being the amount for the loss to the estate of the deceased, it has
\nto be considered as to whether the legal representatives had been put to loss
\nbecause of the death of the deceased.  Wherever the deceased is an earning
\nmember, naturally his savings is an accumulation for the estate which can be
\ndivided by the legal representatives after the death of the deceased.  As the
\nlegal representatives had been put to loss of the earning of the deceased, the
\nlegal representatives are also entitled for the compensation.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gafaran V.
\nTilakraj Kapur reported in 2005 ACJ 1711, considered as to whether major sisters
\nof the deceased who were not dependent on the deceased are also entitled to
\nclaim compensation. The Court held that
\n“Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, where the death has resulted from
\nthe accident, the claim can be preferred by all or any of the legal
\nrepresentatives of the deceased. This provision does not speak of dependants or
\nall such legal representatives being dependent on the deceased. Any legal
\nrepresentative of the deceased can prefer claim before the Tribunal irrespective
\nof he being dependent or not dependent on the deceased.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12. In a case reported in New India Assurance Company Limited V. Ramya
\nRaghavan in 2006 ACJ 2347, the Karnataka High Court considered the subject
\nmatter of this appeal, as to whether married daughter living separately can
\nmaintain a claim for compensation for the death of her mother. In paragraph 5 of
\nthe judgment, the court held that:\n<\/p>\n
“5… The proof of actual dependency is not necessary in law. However, the legal
\nrepresentatives under Section 2 of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, are entitled to
\nseek compensation for loss to estate and they cannot seek general damages and
\nloss of dependency.  That apart, note 6 of Second Schedule enables the legal
\nheirs to seek compensation under Section 163-A. The named dependants are
\nentitled to seek compensation under Section 163-A.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13. A perusal of evidence on record prove that after the demise of the
\nclaimants’ father, the daughters were solely dependent on the income of the
\ndeceased.  She had given them education, food, shelter and the entire marriage
\nexpenses were borne by the deceased. Merely because that the claimants are
\nmarried daughters living separately with their respective husbands, one cannot
\njump to the conclusion that  the deceased mother who was all along supporting
\nher children would have abruptly stopped her contribution and assistance  her
\nmarried daughters. Even assuming that she would have spent money for her living
\nand personal expenses, she would have certainly contributed a portion of her
\nincome to her children or to the grand children as the case may be. Dependency
\nof the legal representatives is a fact to be decided in each case and there
\ncannot be any rigid formula that only dependants alone can claim compensation
\nunder Section 163-A or 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. The Legislature has not used the word, dependant in the Section,
\nrather it has used the word “all or any of the legal representatives”.  In the
\nabsence of class I heirs, the claimants being married daughters are not
\nprecluded from claiming compensation under the Act. They are legal
\nrepresentatives, entitled to the estate of the deceased and therefore entitled
\nto claim compensation, no matter whether they are dependants or not.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The Supreme Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs.
\nRamabhai Prabhatbhai reported in 1987 ACJ 561(SC) has held that “legal
\nrepresentative ordinarily means a person who in law represents the estate of the
\ndeceased person or a person on whom the estate devolves on the death of an
\nindividual.  By referring to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Supreme
\nCourt held that:\n<\/p>\n
“We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court is in consonance with the
\nprinciples of justice, equity and good conscience having regard to the
\nconditions of the Indian Society.  Every legal representative who suffers on
\naccount of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a
\nremedy for realisation of compensation and that is provided by Sections 110-A to
\n110-F of the Act.  These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law
\nof torts that every injury must have a remedy.  It is for the Motor Vehicle
\nAccidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just
\nas provided in Section 110-B of the Act to specify the person or persons to whom
\ncompensation shall be paid.  The determination of the compensation payable and
\nits apportionment as required by Section 110-B of the Act amongst the legal
\nrepresentatives for whose benefits an application may be filed under Section
\n110-A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well-known principles of
\nlaw.  We should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and
\nbrothers’ children and some times, foster children live together and they are
\ndependant upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed
\non account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them
\ncompensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which
\nas we have already held has been substantially modified by the provisions
\ncontained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles
\naccidents.  We express our approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira Vs.
\nChaturbhai Taljabhai (supra), and hold that the brother of a person who dies in
\na motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under section 110-A
\nof the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased.”\n<\/p>\n
Dealing with the claim made by the first cousin of the deceased, the Division
\nBench of this Court in Govindasamy Vs. Ravi and others reported in 2003(1) MLJ
\n253 in paragraph 10 of the Judgment has held that:\n<\/p>\n
“The expressions ‘legal representative’ has not been defined under the Motor
\nVehicles Act, 1939.  But sec.2(c) of the Madras Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
\nRules 1961, states that, the term ‘legal representatives’ occurring in Sec.110-A
\nis stated to have the same meaning assigned to it under Sec.2(11) of C.P.C.
\nSec.2(11) of C.P.C., defines ‘legal representative’ as “a person who in law
\nrepresents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who
\nintermeddles with the estate of a deceased and where a party sues or is sued in
\na representative character the person on whom the estate devloves on the deaths
\nof the party so suing or sued”.  The said definition, no doubt, in terms, does
\nnot apply to a case before the Claims Tribunal, but it has to be stated that
\neven in ordinary parlance the said expression is understood almost in the same
\nway in which it is defined in C.P.C.  A legal representative ordinarily means a
\nperson who in law represents the estate of a deceased person or a person on whom
\nthe estate devolves on the death of an individual.   We can also state that the
\nterm ‘legal representative’ occurring in Sec.110-A of the Act, has wider impact
\nthat the definition of the terms contained in Sec.2(11) of C.P.C.  Clauses (b)
\nand (c) of Sec.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provide that all or any of
\nthe legal representative of the deceased are entitled to make an application for
\ncompensation before the Claims Tribunal for the death of the deceased on account
\nof a motor vehicle accident.  Proviso to Sec.110-A of the Act gains some
\nsignificance.  It provides that the application for compensation shall be made
\non behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the
\ndeceased.  Clause (b) of Sec.110-A states, application for compensation may be
\nmade, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased and Clause (c)
\nof Sec.110-A provides that any agent duly authorised by the person injured or
\nall or any of the legal representatives of the deceased can make such an
\napplication.  Both the person or persons who can make an application for
\ncompensation and the persons for whose benefit such application can be made are
\nthus indicated in Sec.110-A of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\t16. Separate living does not deprive them of their right to claim
\ncompensation as legal representative to the loss of estate. Therefore, I am of
\nthe view that married daughters are also entitled to claim compensation in the
\nabsence of other legal heirs and that the proof of actual dependency is not
\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The next contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant is
\nthat the determination of the monthly income at Rs.2,100\/- in the absence of
\nproof, is erroneous and that application of multiplier “15” is excessive, P.W.1
\nhas deposed that her mother was an Agricultural Coolie, aged 45 years and
\nearning Rs.3000\/- per month. The fact that she had provided the basic needs to
\nher three daughters after her husband’s demise and solemnised their marriage
\nwould itself prove that the deceased was earning. Considering the age of the
\ndeceased and her effort to bring up the female children, it could be reasonably
\npresumed that she would have earned atleast Rs.2,100\/- for maintaining herself
\nand three children. Therefore, the determination of the income at Rs.2,100\/-
\ncannot be termed as excessive.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. The age of the first respondent who is the eldest, among the three
\nmarried daughters, was 29 years at the time of trial. The Supreme Court has held
\nthat while determining the dependency compensation, the choice of the multiplier
\nshould be with reference to the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants,
\nwhichever is higher).\n<\/p>\n
\t19. In the instant case, the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of
\ndeath. The multiplier for the age group of persons above 40 years but not
\nexceeding 45 years, as per the Second Schedule to Section 163-A is “15”. While
\narriving at the capital sum to be consumed up by the dependants for a
\nconsiderable period and taking into account the age of the deceased i.e., 45
\nyears, the proper multiplier is “15”. Therefore, applying the same to the income
\nof the deceased and after deducting one third towards her personal expenses, the
\nTribunal has awarded dependency compensation of Rs.2,52,000\/-. In addition to
\nthat, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.15,000\/- for loss of love and
\naffection to be shared equally by respondents 1 to 3.  The compensation of
\nRs.5,000\/- to each of the children for loss of love and affection is inadequate.
\nRs.2000\/- is awarded for funeral expenses. Altogether the Tribunal has awarded
\ncompensation of Rs.2,69,000\/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. I do not find that the Tribunal has applied any wrong principles of
\nlaw for arriving at the conclusion that married daughters are also entitled to
\nclaim compensation. The quantum of compensation, for the death of person aged 45
\nyears who had contributed her income to her family cannot be termed as
\nexcessive.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. In the result, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the Civil
\nMiscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
\nConsequently, connected M.P.s are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Sub Court,
\nThe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
\nPalani.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Branch Manager vs Mrs.Kaaliathaal on 1 March, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :01\/03\/2007 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR C.M.A.(MD).No.1185 of 2006 and M.P.(MD).Nos.2 of 2006 & 3 of 2007 The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Dharapuram. … Appellant vs. 1. Mrs.Kaaliathaal 2. Mrs.Rukumani […]<\/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-160605","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Branch Manager vs Mrs.Kaaliathaal on 1 March, 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-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-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 Mrs.Kaaliathaal on 1 March, 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-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-04T02:33:25+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=\"14 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-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Branch Manager vs Mrs.Kaaliathaal on 1 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-04T02:33:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2759,\"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-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007\",\"name\":\"The Branch Manager vs Mrs.Kaaliathaal on 1 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-04T02:33:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Branch Manager vs Mrs.Kaaliathaal on 1 March, 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 Mrs.Kaaliathaal on 1 March, 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-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Branch Manager vs Mrs.Kaaliathaal on 1 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-04T02:33:25+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Branch Manager vs Mrs.Kaaliathaal on 1 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-04T02:33:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007"},"wordCount":2759,"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-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007","name":"The Branch Manager vs Mrs.Kaaliathaal on 1 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-04T02:33:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mrs-kaaliathaal-on-1-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Branch Manager vs Mrs.Kaaliathaal on 1 March, 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\/160605","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=160605"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160605\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160605"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160605"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160605"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}