{"id":247837,"date":"2007-11-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007"},"modified":"2017-07-01T06:07:54","modified_gmt":"2017-07-01T00:37:54","slug":"the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Branch Manager vs M.Venkateswari on 7 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Branch Manager vs M.Venkateswari on 7 November, 2007<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 07\/11\/2007\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\n\nC.M.A.(MD) No.1306 of 2007\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007\n\n\nThe Branch Manager,\nThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,\nTheni.\t\t\t\t... \tAppellant\n\n\nVs\n\n\n1.M.Venkateswari\n2.The Special officer,\n  Theni-Allinagaram Municipality,\n  Theni.\t\t\t... \tRespondents\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nAppeal filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/147367599\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 173<\/a> of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the\nJudgement and Decree dated 13.03.2007 passed in MCOP.No.153 of 2004 by the\nlearned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum the Chief Judicial Magistrate,\nTheni.\n\n\n!For Appellant\t\t\t...\tMr.K.Murugesan\n\n\n^For Respondent No.1\t\t...\tMr.R.Rajaram\t\n\n\nFor Respondent No.2\t\t...\tNo appearance\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tThis appeal is focussed as against the Judgement and Decree dated<br \/>\n13.03.2007 passed in MCOP.No.153 of 2004 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims<br \/>\nTribunal cum the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t2. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t3. A re&#8217;sume&#8217; of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal<br \/>\nof this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\tThe Tribunal vide Judgement dated 13.03.2007 has assessed compensation to<br \/>\na tune of Rs.3,77,071.50 (Rupees three lakhs seventy seven thousand seventy one<br \/>\nand paise fifty) on the following sub-heads:<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">\n\n\tFor loss of income\t-\tRs.3,24,000.00\n\tFor medical expenses\t-\tRs.  42,090.00\n\tFor medical bills\t- \tRs.     981.50\n\tFor pain and sufferings -\tRs.  10,000.00\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t--------------\t\t\n\t\t\tTotal\t-\tRs,3,77,071.50\n\t\t\t\t\t--------------\t\t\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_4\">After assessing the compensation the Tribunal slashed it down to Rs.3,77,000\/-<br \/>\n(Rupees three lakhs and seventy seven thousand only).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\t4. The quintessence of the grounds of appeal would run thus:<br \/>\n\tThe Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier method.  The Tribunal<br \/>\nerroneously assumed as though the percentage of disability sustained by the<br \/>\nclaimant as 75% instead of 60% and that 1\/3 (one third) of the income of the<br \/>\nclaimant was not deducted while assessing the quantum of compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t5. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal arrived at<br \/>\n&#8216;just compensation&#8217;?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">6. On point:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\tThe learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would draw the<br \/>\nattention of this Court to the fact that in grievous injury cases, multiplier<br \/>\nsystem cannot be applied as a matter of course; even in the case of applying<br \/>\nsuch multiplier, the correct multiplier should be applied and that too after<br \/>\ndeducting 1\/3 (one third) of the income towards expenses, which the injured<br \/>\nwould spend on herself.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\t7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent\/claimant would<br \/>\nsubmit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">8. Ex facie and prima facie there is some error apparent in the<br \/>\ncalculation arrived at by the Tribunal; 1\/3 of the deceased income i.e.,<br \/>\nRs.2000\/- (Rupees two thousand only) was not deducted.  Furthermore, the<br \/>\nmultiplier chosen was 18 instead of 17 as the injured was only 26 years old at<br \/>\nthe relevant time f the accident.  As per the decision of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court<br \/>\nin <a href=\"\/doc\/1909827\/\" id=\"a_1\">New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalpana<\/a> reported in (2007) 3 Supreme Court<br \/>\nCases 538, the multiplier 18 can be applied only for the age group between 21<br \/>\nand 25.  An excerpt from it would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">\t\t&#8220;11. In Susamma Thomas Case [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335],<br \/>\nit was noted that the normal rate of interest was about 10% and accordingly, the<br \/>\nmultiplier was worked out.  As the interest rate is on the decline, the<br \/>\nmultiplier has to consequentially be raised.  Therefore, instead of 16 the<br \/>\nmultiplier 18 as was adopted in Trilok Chandra Case [(1996) 4 SCC 362] appears<br \/>\nto be appropriate.  In fact in Trilok Chandra case, after reference to Second<br \/>\nSchedule to the Act, it was noticed that the same suffers from many defects.  It<br \/>\nwas pointed out that the same is to serve as a guide, but cannot be said to be<br \/>\ninvariable ready reckoner.  However, the appropriate highest multiplier was held<br \/>\nto be 18.  The highest multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 years to 25<br \/>\nyears when an ordinary Indian citizen starts earning independently and the<br \/>\nlowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70, as the<br \/>\nformer is the normal retirement age.&#8221;\t\t\t\t   (emphasis<br \/>\nsupplied)<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">\t9. The Tribunal instead of awarding compensation for the permanent<br \/>\ndisability by taking into account the percentage of permanent disability and<br \/>\nawarding from Rs.1000\/- to Rs.2000\/- for each percentage of permanent<br \/>\ndisability, has chosen the multiplier system.  Now the appellant Insurance<br \/>\nCompany is challenging it.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">\t10. At this juncture, I would like to refer to this Court decision in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/665053\/\" id=\"a_2\">United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiruchengode v. Veluchamy and another<\/a> reported<br \/>\nin 2005(1)CTC-38.  An excerpt from it would run thus:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;The following principles emerge from the above discussion:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">\t(a) In all case of injury or permanent disablement &#8220;multiplier method&#8221;<br \/>\ncannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning<br \/>\npower.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">\t(b) It depends upon various factors such as nature and extend of<br \/>\ndisablement, avocation of the injured and whether it would affect his employment<br \/>\nor earning power etc., and if so, to what extent?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">\t(c)(1) If there is categorical evidence that because of injury and<br \/>\nconsequential disability, the injured lost his employment or avocation<br \/>\ncompletely and has to be idle till the rest of his life, in that event loss of<br \/>\nincome or earning may be ascertained by applying &#8220;multiplier method&#8221; as provided<br \/>\nunder Second Schedule to the <a href=\"\/doc\/785258\/\" id=\"a_3\">Motor Vehicles Act<\/a>, 1988.<br \/>\n\t(2) Even, if so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of fatal<br \/>\ncases as provided under the Schedule.  If there is no amputation and if there is<br \/>\nevidence to show that there is likelihood of reduction or improvement in future<br \/>\nyears, lesser period may be adopted for ascertainment of loss of income.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">\t(d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of<br \/>\nemployment being attended by the injured at the time of accident&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">\t11. The perusal of the aforesaid decision would demonstrate that in a case<br \/>\nwhere the injured&#8217;s life has become a vegetative one life or ideal one<br \/>\nnaturally, the multiplier system has to be applied.  In this case, the injured<br \/>\nhappened to be a house wife having children also.  The Tribunal also believed<br \/>\nthe evidence to the effect that at the relevant time of the accident, she was<br \/>\ndoing some tailoring work and earning a sum of Rs.2000\/- (Rupees two thousand<br \/>\nonly) per month.  Because, of this accident, certainly it could be taken that<br \/>\nshe might not be able to carry on with her normal function as tailor as well as<br \/>\nthe house wife.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">\t12. The Tribunal in its wisdom thought fit to apply the multiplier system<br \/>\nin the best interest of the injured as well as her family.  I am of the<br \/>\nconsidered opinion that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal need not be<br \/>\ninterfered with.  While holding so, I do not lay down a broad proposition that<br \/>\nin all amputation cases it should be taken as though multiplier system is<br \/>\nautomatically applicable.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">\t13. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would submit<br \/>\nthat 75% permanent disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and<br \/>\nit could only be 60%, even as per the evidence of the Doctor.  The learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the claimant would submit that the Doctor clearly and categorically<br \/>\nstated that the injured has now only two centimetre extent below the knee and<br \/>\nactually she does not have leg at all below the knee.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">\t14. In such a case, the Doctor felt that even though 60% permanent<br \/>\ndisability could be assessed for amputation below the knee yet in view of her<br \/>\nyoung age and loss of cosmetics appearance, 15% more could be added.  The<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would submit that once<br \/>\nmultiplier method is used, there is no point in awarding any amount towards loss<br \/>\nof cosmetic appearance etc.  I could see considerable force in the contention of<br \/>\nthe learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and accordingly it<br \/>\nviewed over and above 60% for the permanent disability at the most for her age<br \/>\nonly 10% could be added to it and the total could only be 70% and not 75%.  In<br \/>\nrespect of other sub heads the compensation awarded can be left as such without<br \/>\nbeing interfered with.  Accordingly,the compensation  under the head &#8216;loss of<br \/>\nincome&#8217; shall be re-fixed and arrived at Rs.1,90,400\/- [Rs.2000 X 12 X 17 X<br \/>\n70\/100 X 2\/3= Rs.1,90,400\/-] (Rupees one lakh ninety thousand and four hundred<br \/>\nonly).  Hence, the total compensation would come to Rs.2,43,471.50\/- (Rupees two<br \/>\nlakh forty three thousand four hundred seventy one and paise fifty only) as<br \/>\ndetailed below.<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_2\">\n\n\tFor loss of income\t-\tRs.1,90,400.00\n\tFor medical expenses\t-\tRs.  42,090.00\n\tFor medical bills\t- \tRs.     981.50\n\tFor pain and sufferings -\tRs.  10,000.00\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t--------------\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\tTotal\t-\tRs,2,43,471.50\n\t\t\t\t\t--------------\t\n\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_22\">\t15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and<br \/>\nthe award of the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.3,77,000\/- (Rupees three lakh and<br \/>\nseventy seven only) to Rs.2,43,471.50\/- (Rupees two lakh forty three thousand<br \/>\nfour hundred seventy one and paise fifty  only), which shall carry interest at<br \/>\nthe rate of 7.5% per annum as directed by the Tribunal.  No costs.<br \/>\nConsequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">smn<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum the<br \/>\nChief Judicial Magistrate, Theni.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_24\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Branch Manager vs M.Venkateswari on 7 November, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07\/11\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD) No.1306 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007 The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Theni. &#8230; Appellant Vs 1.M.Venkateswari 2.The Special officer, Theni-Allinagaram Municipality, [&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-247837","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Branch Manager vs M.Venkateswari on 7 November, 2007 - 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-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-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 M.Venkateswari on 7 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-01T00:37:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Branch Manager vs M.Venkateswari on 7 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-01T00:37:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1344,\"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-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007\",\"name\":\"The Branch Manager vs M.Venkateswari on 7 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-01T00:37:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Branch Manager vs M.Venkateswari on 7 November, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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 M.Venkateswari on 7 November, 2007 - 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-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Branch Manager vs M.Venkateswari on 7 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-01T00:37:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Branch Manager vs M.Venkateswari on 7 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-01T00:37:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007"},"wordCount":1344,"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-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007","name":"The Branch Manager vs M.Venkateswari on 7 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-01T00:37:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-m-venkateswari-on-7-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Branch Manager vs M.Venkateswari on 7 November, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/247837","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=247837"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247837\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}