{"id":226647,"date":"2006-02-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006"},"modified":"2014-08-08T13:40:00","modified_gmt":"2014-08-08T08:10:00","slug":"the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Managing Director vs Sammanasu Mary on 7 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Managing Director vs Sammanasu Mary on 7 February, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 07\/02\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGA PERUMAL ADITYAN\n\n\nC.M.A.No.222 of 1998\n\n\nThe Managing Director,\nThiruvalluvar Transport Corporation,\nMadras - 600 002.\t\t\n\t\t\t\t...\tAppellant\n\nVs\n\n1.Sammanasu Mary\n2.Antonisami\t\t\t...\tRespondents\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the\njudgment and decree dated 26.09.1997 and made in M.C.O.P.No.1034 of 1994 on the\nfile of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - ( I Additional Sub Judge, III\nAdditional Sub Court-In-Charge) Trichy.\n\n\n!For Appellant    \t...\tMr.D.Sivaraman for\n\t\t\t\tM\/s.Rajinish Pathiyil\n\n^For Respondents  \t...\tMr.A.Saravanan\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis appeal has been preferred against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1034<br \/>\nof 1994 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -(I Additional Sub<br \/>\nJudge, III Additional Sub Court-In-Charge) Trichy.  The State Transport<br \/>\nCorporation is the appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>The short facts of the case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. On 24.01.1994, the deceased Lawrence, was going on his bicycle from<br \/>\nsouth to north on the Trichy &#8211; Madras Trunk Road with a bag load of margo seeds.<br \/>\nThe bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-0871, belonging to the respondent was<br \/>\ndriven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from south to north and<br \/>\ndashed against the cycle, in which the said Lawrence was riding, from behind.<br \/>\nDue to the impact, Lawrence was thrown out from his bicycle and sustained<br \/>\ngrievous injuries all over his body.  Immediately, the said Lawrence was taken<br \/>\nto Poorna Nursing Home, Trichy, but he breathed his last on 30.01.1994, without<br \/>\nresponding to the treatment.  At the time of the accident, Lawrence was aged<br \/>\nabout 19 years and was working as a Manager in a Poultry Firm at Siruganoor and<br \/>\nwas earning Rs.2,000\/- per mensum.  The claimants are the parents of the<br \/>\ndeceased, who were depending on the said Lawrence.  They have filed the claim<br \/>\npetition demanding Rs.2,00,000\/- towards compensation.  The respondent in his<br \/>\ncounter has stated that the accident had not taken place due to the rash and<br \/>\nnegligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-0871.<br \/>\nThe said Lawrence was riding on his bicycle in front of the bus at Siruganoor<br \/>\nborder with the big gunny bag at the carrier and at the time, when the bus over<br \/>\ntook him, the cyclist, Lawrence could not balance the cycle with a load and fell<br \/>\ndown on the road on the right side.  In that process, he contacted on the right<br \/>\nside of the body of the bus, sustaining injuries.  The compensation claimed is<br \/>\nexorbitant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Before the learned Tribunal, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.P.1<br \/>\nto P.8 were marked on the side of the claimants.  R.W.1 was examined and no<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence was let in on the side of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. On the basis of the available evidence let in before the learned<br \/>\nTribunal, the learned Tribunal has passed an award of Rs.1,86,000\/- towards<br \/>\ncompensation with 12% interest and proportionate costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Aggrieved by the award of compensation in M.C.O.P.No.1034 of 1994, the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu state Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Now, the point for determination in this appeal is whether the award<br \/>\npassed in M.C.O.P.No.1034 of 1994 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; ( I Additional Sub Judge, III Additional Sub Court-In-Charge) Trichy, is<br \/>\nliable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the Memorandum of appeal?\n<\/p>\n<p>The Point:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The victim was aged only 19 years as per Ex.P.2, post-mortem<br \/>\ncertificate.  Even though, the appellant would contend in the counter filed<br \/>\nbefore the learned Tribunal that only due to the contributory negligence of the<br \/>\ncyclist, the deceased Lawrence, the accident had occurred.  The driver of the<br \/>\nbus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-0871 was examined before the learned<br \/>\nTribunal as R.W.1.  In the cross-examination, he would admit that in the<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate Court, Lalgudi, he was convicted for the rash and negligent<br \/>\nact and in the appeal also, the fine was reduced from Rs.1,000\/- to Rs.500\/-.<br \/>\nSo, from the evidence of R.W.1, it is clear that the accident had occurred only<br \/>\ndue to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus.  If the<br \/>\naccident would not have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the<br \/>\nsaid bus, bearing Registration No.TN-01-0871, he would have preferred a<br \/>\ncomplaint with the police, soon after the accident.  But, a perusal of Ex.A.1,<br \/>\ncopy of the First Information Report, would go to show that the First<br \/>\nInformation Report was preferred by Victor Lawrence, who had seen the occurrence<br \/>\nand was also examined as P.W.2 in the claim petition.  He has categorically<br \/>\nstated in his evidence that the bus was driven by the driver in a hectic speed<br \/>\nat the place of accident and dashed against the cyclist Lawrence, who was riding<br \/>\non his bicycle on the left hand side of the road.  So, the contention of the<br \/>\nappellant that only due to the contributory negligence of the deceased Lawrence,<br \/>\nthe accident had occurred, is not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The claimants, who are the unfortunate parents of the deceased<br \/>\nLawrence, have claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000\/- towards loss of income.<br \/>\nThe learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,56,000\/- towards loss of income.  To show<br \/>\nthe monthly income of the deceased, the claimants have produced Ex.A.8, pay<br \/>\ncertificate, issued by the employer of the deceased.  The employer of the<br \/>\ndeceased was examined on the side of the claimant as P.W.3, who would depose<br \/>\nthat he is having a Poultry at Siruganoor and Lawrence was working as a manager<br \/>\nof the Poultry and was earning Rs.2,000\/- towards his monthly income.  But,<br \/>\nwithout any reason, the learned Tribunal has discarded the evidence of P.W.3 and<br \/>\napplied the multiplier 13 and fixed the loss of income as Rs.1,56,000\/-.  If we<br \/>\ntake the monthly income of the deceased Lawrence as Rs.2,000\/- per mensum, on<br \/>\nthe basis of Ex.P.8, pay certificate, after deducting 1\/3 towards his personal<br \/>\nexpenses, the claimants would have received at least Rs.1,334\/- from the<br \/>\ndeceased Lawrence.  The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would<br \/>\ncontend that the multiplier to be used for such type of cases, in which a<br \/>\nbachelor of 19 years died in an accident, leaving his aged mother, at the age of<br \/>\n48, is 10 and not 13.  For this proposition of law, the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant relied on the decision in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs.<br \/>\nLaxman Iyer and another reported in 2004 ACJ 53.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The facts of the above case are that a bachelor aged 18 was run over by<br \/>\na vehicle bearing Registration No.MMK-6623.  The parents of the deceased had<br \/>\npreferred the claim petition.  The High Court of Bombay had fixed the quantum of<br \/>\ncompensation as Rs.5,60,000\/-, applying the multiplier formula of 15 and after<br \/>\ndeducting the 25% from the lump sum of award ultimately, the award of<br \/>\ncompensation was fixed by the High Court of Bombay as Rs.4,01,250\/-.  The<br \/>\nclaimants were given 15% interest for the said award amount.  The State<br \/>\nTransport Corporation, Greater Bombay preferred an appeal before the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt and the Apex Court has deducted the award of compensation and fixed as<br \/>\nRs.3,00,000\/-.  The relevant observation of the said dictum is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8221; Keeping in view the observations made by this Court in various cases,<br \/>\nseveral other factors need to be taken note of.  The deceased was unmarried.<br \/>\nThe contribution to the parents who had their separate earnings being employed<br \/>\nand educated have relevance.  The possibility of reduction in contribution once<br \/>\na person gets married is a reality.  The compensation is relatable to be loss of<br \/>\ncontribution or the pecuniary benefits.  The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal<br \/>\nand confirmed by the High Court is certainly on the higher side.  Considering<br \/>\nthe age of the claimants it can never exceed 10 even by the most liberal<br \/>\nstandards.  Worked out on that basis amount comes to Rs.3,60,000\/- at the<br \/>\nmonthly expected income fixed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court.<br \/>\nLooking into the nature of the contributory negligence of the deceased after<br \/>\nmaking an appropriate deduction which can reasonably be fixed at 25 per cent,<br \/>\nthe compensation amount payable by the corporation  can be fixed at<br \/>\nRs.3,00,000\/- including the amount awarded by the Tribunal and confirmed by the<br \/>\nHigh Court for loss of expectation of life.  Interest at the rate as awarded by<br \/>\nthe High Court is maintained from the date of application for compensation.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. So, under the head, loss of income, the claimants would have received<br \/>\nRs.1,60,080\/- [Rs.1,334 X 12 X 10 = Rs.1,60,080\/-] and the same is awarded as<br \/>\ncompensation.  The claimants have lost their son at the prime age of his youth.<br \/>\nBecause of this accident, the claimants have lost the affectionate son at the<br \/>\nage of 19 years.  So, for loss of love and affection, I award Rs.10,000\/-<br \/>\ntowards compensation.  Towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000\/- will be a reasonable<br \/>\naward of compensation.   For taking the injured from the place of occurrence to<br \/>\nthe Poorna Nursing Home at Trichy, by engaging a taxi, the claimants would have<br \/>\nincurred an expense of Rs.1,000 towards taxi hire charges.  So, I award<br \/>\nRs.1,000\/- under the head, transport to hospital.  In the accident, the cloth<br \/>\nand the bicycle of the deceased would have got damaged, so on that score, I<br \/>\naward Rs.1,500\/-.  The claimants have produced Ex.A.5, discharge summary.  Soon<br \/>\nafter the accident, the deceased was admitted in Poorna Nursing Home at Trichy<br \/>\nand was in the hosptial as an inpatient for nearly six days i.e., from<br \/>\n24.01.1994 to 30.01.1994.  The claimants have produced Ex.A.6, medical bills to<br \/>\nshow that they have incurred an expense of Rs.18,754.29 towards the purchase of<br \/>\nmedicines and other medical expenses.  So, I award Rs.18,754.29 towards<br \/>\ncompensation under the head medical expenses.  So, the total compensation to<br \/>\nwhich the claimants are entitled to comes to Rs.1,96,334.29, rounded to<br \/>\nRs.1,96,334\/- [Rs.1,60,080\/- + Rs.10,000\/- + Rs.5,000\/- + Rs.1,000\/- +<br \/>\nRs.1,500\/- + Rs.18,754.29 = Rs.1,96,334.29 @ Rs.1,96,334\/-].\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Hence, I hold on the point that the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1034 of<br \/>\n1994 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal &#8211; III Additional Sub Judge,<br \/>\nTrichy, need not be set aside for the reasons stated in the Memorandum of<br \/>\nappeal.  The point is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  But, the said award is<br \/>\nmodified (under Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C) and the claimants are entitled to get<br \/>\nRs.1,96,334\/- towards compensation with 12% interest from the date of filing of<\/p>\n<p>petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs.  Time for<br \/>\ndeposit of the balance of the award amount is two months.  The claimants are<br \/>\nliable to pay court fee for the enhanced award amount.  On such deposit of the<br \/>\nenhanced award amount, the claimants are entitled to withdraw Rs.1,50,000\/-.<br \/>\nThe balance of the award amount with accrued interest, shall be deposited in any<br \/>\none of the<br \/>\nnationalised bank for three years in a fixed deposit.  The claimants are<br \/>\nentitled to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months from the above<br \/>\nsaid deposit amount.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>( I Additional Sub Judge,<br \/>\n   III Additional Sub Court-In-Charge),<br \/>\nTrichy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Managing Director vs Sammanasu Mary on 7 February, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07\/02\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGA PERUMAL ADITYAN C.M.A.No.222 of 1998 The Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, Madras &#8211; 600 002. &#8230; Appellant Vs 1.Sammanasu Mary 2.Antonisami &#8230; Respondents Prayer Appeal filed [&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-226647","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>The Managing Director vs Sammanasu Mary on 7 February, 2006 - 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\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Managing Director vs Sammanasu Mary on 7 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-08T08:10:00+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=\"9 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-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Managing Director vs Sammanasu Mary on 7 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-08T08:10:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1793,\"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-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006\",\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Sammanasu Mary on 7 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-08T08:10:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Managing Director vs Sammanasu Mary on 7 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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 Managing Director vs Sammanasu Mary on 7 February, 2006 - 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\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Managing Director vs Sammanasu Mary on 7 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-08T08:10:00+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Managing Director vs Sammanasu Mary on 7 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-08T08:10:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006"},"wordCount":1793,"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-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006","name":"The Managing Director vs Sammanasu Mary on 7 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-08T08:10:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-vs-sammanasu-mary-on-7-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Managing Director vs Sammanasu Mary on 7 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/226647","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=226647"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226647\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226647"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}