{"id":57436,"date":"2006-06-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-06-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006"},"modified":"2017-03-31T19:08:41","modified_gmt":"2017-03-31T13:38:41","slug":"g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006","title":{"rendered":"G. Arumugam vs R. Krishnamurthy on 7 June, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
G. Arumugam vs R. Krishnamurthy on 7 June, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 07\/06\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. DHANAPALAN    \n\nC.M.A.(NPD) No.62 of 1998  \n\n1.     G. Arumugam \n2.      Anjalai                                         ..       Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.     R. Krishnamurthy\n2.      The New India Assurance Company Limited \n38 Anna Salai \nMadras - 600 002                                        ..      Respondents\n\n\n        Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated\n28.04.1997 made  in M.C.O.P.  No.639 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accident\nClaims Tribunal (V Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.\n\n!For appellants         :       Mr.  Varada Kamaraj\n                                        for.  Mr.  B.S.  Padmanabhan\n^For R2                 :       Mr.  M.  Krishnamoorthy\n\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
        Challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,  V  Court
\nof  Small  Causes, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) made in
\nM.C.O.P.  No.639 of 1995 dated 28.04.1997 for a sum of Rs.50,0 00\/- in respect
\nof death of their only son Poovannan aged eight  years,  the  parents  of  the
\ndeceased,  have  preferred  this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of
\ncompensation to Rs.1,50,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      In support of their claim, the  father  of  the  deceased  was
\nexamined  as  P.W.1,  one  Gnanaprakasam,  an eye-witness to the accident, was
\nexamined  as  P.W.2  and  one  Amaldass,  Sub-Inspector  of  Police,   Traffic
\nInvestigation  Department  was  examined  as  P.W.3 besides marking Legal Heir
\nCertificate as Ex.P.1, First Information Report as Ex.P.2, Copy of  sketch  as
\nEx.P.3,  Post-mortem Certificate as Ex.P.4 and the school Transfer Certificate
\nas Ex.P.5.  On the side of  the  respondents,  neither  oral  nor  documentary
\nevidence was let in.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      The   Tribunal,  after  analyzing  the  oral  and  documentary
\nevidence and after holding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent
\ndriving of the driver  of  the  car  in  question,  ordered  that,  a  sum  of
\nRs.50,000\/-  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  12% per annum from the date of
\npetition till the date of deposit, may be paid to the claimants by the  second
\nrespondent Insurance Company on behalf of the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      According  to the appellants who were the claimants before the
\nTribunal, on 12.02.1995 at about  4:30  p.m.,  when  the  deceased  Poovannan,
\nstudying  in  III  standard,  was  standing on the eastern side of the 100 ft.
\nroad opposite to Ottagapalayam, Sri  Mandaveli  Amman  Kovil,  a  car  bearing
\nRegistration No.  MMU 7425 driven rashly and negligently, coming from North to
\nSouth,  dashed  against  Poovannan due to which, he sustained injuries and was
\ntaken to Government Royapettah Hospital where he died.  It is the case of  the
\nappellants  that  the  first  respondent,  as the owner of the vehicle and the
\nsecond  respondent,  as  the  insurer  of  the  vehicle  are  vicariously  and
\nstatutorily liable to pay the compensation.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      The first respondent herein was absent and set ex-parte before
\nthe Tribunal and the second respondent Insurance company has filed its counter
\ndenying the injuries sustained by the deceased and the place, date and time of
\nthe  accident  and  contending  that in any event, the compensation claimed is
\nexcessive.\n<\/p>\n
        6.      Heard Mr.  Varada Kamaraj for Mr.  B.S.  Padmanabhan,  learned
\ncounsel for the appellants and Mr.  M.  Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the
\nsecond respondent Insurance Company.\n<\/p>\n
        7.      The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that:
\na.      the Tribunal, having found that the negligence is on the part  of  the
\ndriver  of  the  car,  ought  to  have  considered the quantum of compensation
\nclaimed by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
b.      the deceased would have got an employment in  future  and  would  have
\nsupported the appellants till their lifetime<\/p>\n
c.      that  as  per  Schedule II of Section 163-A of the Act, the appellants
\nare entitled to compensation  which  works  out  to  Rs.2  lakhs  whereas  the
\nTribunal went wrong in awarding Rs.50,000\/- only.\n<\/p>\n
7.      In  support  of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellants
\nhas relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2001 ACJ 1735  (Lata
\nWadhwa &  Others Vs.  State of Bihar & Others) in which case for the age group
\nof children between 5 and 10 years who died on  account  of  fire  in  Pandal,
\napart  from  a compensation of Rs.1,50,000\/-, a sum of Rs.50,000\/- was awarded
\ntowards conventional damage and therefore, it is the argument of  the  counsel
\nfor  the  appellants that in this case, the age of the deceased being 8 years,
\nthe quantum of compensation has to be awarded in the light  of  the  principle
\nlaid down in the above ruling.\n<\/p>\n
        8.      In  addition to the above, he has also relied on a decision of
\nthe Supreme Court reported in 2005 ACJ 99 (Manju Devi & Another Vs.    Musafir
\nPaswan  & Another) in which case, the deceased was aged 13 years and the award
\nof the Tribunal was increased from Rs.90,000\/- to Rs.2,25 ,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
        9.      Per contra, Mr.  M.  Krishnamurthy, learned  counsel  for  the
\nInsurance Company has contended that the deceased was a school student and was
\nnot an  earning member to support to the family.  It is his further contention
\nthat the amount of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is  reasonable  and
\nbased  on the ruling of this Court reported in 2004 (1) TN MAC 172 (Kokila and
\nAnother Vs.  A.C.  Rayan & Another) and  the  ruling  in  the  above  case  is
\nsquarely applicabl e to the facts of the present case and therefore, it may be
\ntaken into consideration.\n<\/p>\n
        10.     He  has  further  relied  on  a  decision of the Supreme Court
\nreported in 2004 ACJ 53 in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
\nVs.  Laxman Iyer and Another  in  which  case  the  deceased  aged  18  years,
\nbelonged  to  a  respectable  and  educated family and the Tribunal adopted 15
\nmultiplier but the Apex Court adopted multiplier of  10  while  assessing  the
\ncompensation.\n<\/p>\n
        11.     Further  reliance  has  been placed by the learned counsel for
\nthe second respondent Insurance Company on a judgment of this  Court  reported
\nin   1997  MLJ  II  217  (Managing  Director,  Dheeran  Chinnamalai  Transport
\nCorporation Ltd.  Vs.  Thangappan and  Another)  in  which  case,  this  Court
\nconfirmed the compensation of Rs.75,000\/- awarded by the Tribunal for a 3 year
\nold deceased and hence, he argued that the appeal may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        12.     In  view  of  the  fact  that the present appeal is for higher
\ncompensation and in the absence of any appeal by the owner and the insurer, it
\nis unnecessary for me to  go  into  the  finding  of  the  Tribunal  regarding<\/p>\n
negligence  and liability and thus, the only point for consideration before me
\nis whether the appellants deserve enhancement of compensation and if so,  what
\nis the extent of enhancement.\n<\/p>\n
        13.     It  is seen from Ex.P.5, the school Transfer Certificate which
\nwas marked to prove that the date of birth of the deceased was 11.03.198 7 and
\nhe was about eight years old and the fact that he was studying in III standard
\nis also proved from the above exhibit.  The appellants who are the parents  of
\nthe  deceased  would  have  been subject to grief as they have lost their only
\nson.  It is not in dispute that the claimants, being the legal  heirs  of  the
\ndeceased, are   entitled   to  get  the  compensation.    Though  a  claim  of
\nRs.1,95,000\/- was made for pecuniary loss  to  the  estate  of  the  deceased,
\nRs.3,000\/- for loss of expectation of life and Rs.2,000\/- for funeral expenses
\ntotaling  to  Rs.2,00  ,000\/-,  the  Tribunal  has  awarded  only Rs.50,000\/-.
\nFurther, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards conventional damages.
\nIt is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company  that
\nfor a  school  going  boy,  there  cannot be any proof of income.  In my view,
\nnotional income per year for a non-earning person could  have  been  taken  as
\nRs.15,000\/- and  this  is  an  accident  which  took place on 12.02.1995.  The
\nSchedule II of Section 163 of the Motor Vehciles Act  could  have  been  taken
\ninto consideration for applying the proper multiplier which is not followed in
\nthis case.    The claim made by the appellants is quite reasonable as the loss
\nof their only son should  have  been  given  paramount  consideration  by  the
\nTribunal which has not been done.\n<\/p>\n
        14.     In view of the above situation, let me now proceed to consider
\nthe decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellants herein:\n<\/p>\n
        15.     Firstly,  he has relied on a decision of the decision reported
\nin 2001 ACJ 1735 (Lata Wadhwa and Others Vs.    State  of  Bihar  and  Others)
\nwherein it was held in paragraph 11 as under:\n<\/p>\n
“11.    So far as the award of compensation in case of children are concerned,
\nMr.  Chandrachud has divided them into two groups, first group between the age
\ngroup of 5 and 10 years and the second group between the age group of  10  and
\n15 years.   In the case of children between the age group of 5 and 10 years, a
\nuniform sum of Rs.50,000\/- has been held to be payable by way of compensation,
\nto which the conventional figure of Rs.25,000\/- has been added and as such  to
\nthe heirs of the 14 children, a consolidated sum of Rs.75,000\/ – each has been
\nawarded.  So far as the children in the age group of 10 to 15 years, there are
\n10  such  children,  who  died  on  the  fateful  day  and  having found their
\ncontribution to the family at Rs.12,000\/- per annum, multiplier of 11 has been
\napplied, particularly, depending upon the age  of  the  father  and  then  the
\nconventional  compensation  of  Rs.25,000\/-  has  been  added to each case and
\nconsequently, the heirs of each of the deceased above 10 years  of  age,  have
\nbeen granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,57,000\/- each.  In case of death
\nof  an  infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its
\nparents during the child’s lifetime.  But this will not  necessarily  bar  the
\nparents’ claim and prospective loss will found a valid claim provided that the
\nparents  establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit
\nif the child had lived.  This principle was laid down by the House of Lords in
\nthe famous case of Taff Vale Railway Company Vs.  Jenkins (1913 AC 1 and  Lord
\nAtknison said thus:\n<\/p>\n
“?all  that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit
\nshould be entertained by the person who sues.   It  is  quite  true  that  the
\nexistence  of this expectation is an inference of factthere must be a basis of
\nfact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish  to  express
\nmy  emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the
\nfacts without which the  inference  cannot  be  drawn  are,  first,  that  the
\ndeceased earned money in the past and second that he or she contributed to the
\nsupport of  the  plaintiff.  These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence,
\nbut they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can I  think
\nbe drawn from circumstances other than and different from them.”\n<\/p>\n
        At  the same time, it must be held that a mere speculative possibility
\nof benefit is not sufficient.  Question  whether  there  exists  a  reasonable
\nexpectation of pecuniary advantage is always a mixed question of fact and law.
\nThere  are  several  decided cases on this point, providing the guidelines for
\ndetermination of compensation in such cases but we do not think  it  necessary
\nfor  us  to  advert,  as  the  claimants  had not adduced any materials on the
\nreasonable expectation of pecuniary benefits, which the parents expected.   In
\ncase  of a bright and healthy boy, his performances in the school, it would be
\neasier for the authority to arrive at the compensation amount,  which  may  be
\ndifferent  from  another sickly, unhealthy, rickety child and bad student, but
\nas has been stated earlier, not an iota of material was  produced  before  Mr.
\nChandrachud  to  enable  him to arrive at just compensation in such cases and,
\ntherefore, he has determined the same on an  approximation.    Mr.    Nariman,
\nappearing  for the TISCO on his own submitted that the compensation determined
\nfor the children of all age groups could be doubled, as in his views also, the
\ndetermination made is grossly inadequate.  Loss of a child to the  parents  is
\nirrecoupable and  no  amount  of  money  could compensate the parents.  Having
\nregard to the environment  from  which  these  children  were  brought,  their
\nparents  being  reasonably  well  placed  officials of the Tata Iron and Steel
\nCompany and on considering the submission of Mr.   Nariman,  we  would  direct
\nthat  the  compensation amount for the children between the age group of 5 and
\n10 years should be three times.  In other words, it should be Rs.1,50,000\/- to
\nwhich the conventional figure of Rs.50,000\/- should  be  added  and  thus  the
\ntotal amount  in  each  case  would  be Rs.2,00,000\/-.  So far as the children
\nbetween the age group of 10 and 15 years, they are all students of class VI to
\nClass X and are children of employees of  TISCO.    The  TISCO  itself  has  a
\ntradition  that  every  employee  can  get  one  of  his child employed in the
\nCompany.  Having regard to these facts, in their  case,  the  contribution  of
\nRs.12,000\/-  per  annum  appears  to  us  to  be  on the lower side and in our
\nconsidered opinion, the annual contribution should be Rs.24,000\/- and  instead
\nof multiplier  of  11, the appropriate multiplier would be 15.  Therefore, the
\ncompensation, so calculated on the aforesaid basis, should be  worked  out  to
\nRs.3,60,000\/-  to which an additional sum of Rs.50,000\/- has to be added, thus
\nmaking the total  compensation  payable  at  Rs.4,10,000\/-  for  each  of  the
\nclaimants of the aforesaid deceased children.”\n<\/p>\n
        16.     The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  has  also  placed
\nreliance on a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 ACJ  99  (
\nManju Devi  and  Another Vs.  Musafir Paswan and Another) wherein paragraphs 2
\nand 3 read as under:\n<\/p>\n
“2.     In the case of U.P.  State Road  Transport  Corporation  Vs.    Trilok
\nChandra,  1996  ACJ 831 (SC), it has been held by this Court that there should
\nbe no departure from the multiplier method on the ground  that  payment  being
\nmade is  just  compensation.  It has been held that the multiplier method must
\nbe accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of  just  compensation
\nas  it  is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all
\nover the country.  In view of this authority, it was have to be held that  the
\naward of compensation had to be made by the multiplier method.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      As  set  out in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act,
\n1988 , for a boy of 13 years of age, a multiplier  of  15  would  have  to  be
\napplied.   As per the Second Schedule, he being a non-earning person, a sum of
\nRs.15,000\/- must be taken as the income.   Thus,  the  compensation  comes  to
\nRs.2,25,000\/-.”\n<\/p>\n
        17.     In the instant case, the deceased was aged eight years at  the
\ntime of  death  and  was  studying III standard.  It is seen from the evidence
\nthat the appellants have lost their only son.  The Court has  to  depend  upon
\nvery  many  uncertain  factors  and  has  to take overall picture and form the
\nestimate.  It may be sometime  based  upon  speculation.    A  just  and  fair
\ncalculation  of  compensation  would  be  what  the  beneficiaries  would have
\nreceived from the deceased as support for their maintenance had  the  deceased
\nlived and  earned.    The  paramount  consideration  of  the matter is only to
\nprotect the interest of the claimants so that the amount awarded  to  them  by
\nway  of compensation serves the purpose and object of compensation to them for
\nthe loss occasioned by the tragedy of the accident.  In the present case,  the
\npossibility  of  the  deceased becoming successful in the life cannot be ruled
\nout.  There can be no exact, uniform rule for measuring  the  value  of  human
\nlife  and  the  measure of damage cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical
\ncalculations.\n<\/p>\n
        18.     In this context, it is useful to refer to a  judgment  of  the
\nFirst  Bench  of  this  Court  reported  in  2005  (1) MLJ 677 (The President,
\nMalikdhinar English Medium School and Another Vs.  A.  Babudeen and Others) in
\nwhich case the school van, while bringing a minor girl aged 3+ years back home
\nfrom the school, the girl alighted from the van and  the  driver  of  the  van
\nsuddenly started the bus and the van ran over the child for which the Tribunal
\na compensation  of  Rs.1,12,000\/-.    While  dealing with this case, the First
\nBench of this Court observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
“5.     The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  then  contended  that the
\ncompensation of Rs.1,12,500\/- with interest awarded by  the  Tribunal  towards
\nthe  damages  was exorbitant and the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal
\nwas not proper and correct because in the case of such a young child, it would
\nbe wholly speculative to infer what would be the loss  of  pecuniary  benefits
\nreasonably to  be expected after the child attains majority.  He has relied on
\nthe Supreme Court decision in C.K.  Subramania Iyer  Vs.    T.K.    Unhikuttan
\nNair, (1969) 3  SCC  64  and  in  M.S.  Grewal Vs.  Deepchand Sod, AIR 2001 SC
\n3660.  He also relied on the decision of the  Division  Bench  of  this  Court
\nrendered in  United India Insurance Company Limited Vs.  Bankarappa Nicken and
\nOthers, 1994 ACJ 91.\n<\/p>\n
        6.      We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that it is
\npurely speculative to consider the future earning capacity of a child of  3  +
\nyears old.    We can have no idea at all what the child would have earned when
\nshe would have grown up and hence, we cannot  fix  the  compensation  on  this
\nbasis.\n<\/p>\n
        7.      On  the  other hand, in our opinion, it is the mental agony of
\nthe parents of the child which is the real  determining  factor  for  awarding
\ndamages in  such  cases.    It  must be remembered that in such cases there is
\nbound to be a permanent mental scar in mind, particularly of the mother of the
\nchild, which is likely to last throughout  her  life.    The  mother  will  be
\nthinking  of  that  child the rest of her life and would be imagining what the
\nchild would have done on growing up, she would imagine about the  marriage  of
\nthe child, the future of the child, and so on.  That is the natural and normal
\nmentality of every mother.  Hence, the agony of such a mother, whose child has
\nbeen killed,  for the rest of her life is indescribable and unimaginable.  The
\ncompensation, therefore, must be awarded  taking  this  factor  into  account.
\nWounds of the mind can be as damaging and bitter (if not more) than the wounds
\nof the body and the law cannot ignore this.\n<\/p>\n
        8.      Mental agony is certainly a determining factor which has to be
\ntaken into account when awarding damages.  ”\n<\/p>\n
        19.     In Lata  Wadhwa Vs.  State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3218, where a
\nnumber of persons, including children, died in a fire accident in  a  function
\norganized by the Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) at Jamshedpur, parents of
\nchildren  in  the  age  group of 5 and 10 years were allowed Rs.1,50,000\/- and
\nparents of children in the age group of  10  and  15  years  Rs.2,60,000\/-  as
\ncompensation.   In  addition,  in  each  case,  Rs.50,000\/-  were  awarded  as
\nconventional amount presumable towards benefit of the estimate.  ”\n<\/p>\n
19.     Resisting  the  same, the counsel for the respondent Insurance Company
\nhas relied on a decision of 2004 ACJ 1953 (Municipal  Corporation  of  Greater
\nBombay Vs.    Laxman  Iyer  and  Another)  which is a case of a fatal accident
\ninvolving 18 year old student belonging to a respectable and  educated  family
\nand the father’s age was 47 and the mother was aged 43.  The Tribunal assessed
\nthe  income  as  Rs.3,000\/-  per  month, adopted multiplier of 15 and assessed
\ncompensation of Rs.5,60,000\/- including loss  of  expectation  of  life,  made
\ndeduction of  25%  for lumpsum payment and awarded the compensation.  The Apex
\nCourt, in that case, adopted multiplier of 10 and  assessed  the  compensation
\nand  after  deduction  of 25% for contributory negligence of the deceased, the
\naward has been reduced.  Whereas in the present case, the facts are different.
\nTherefore, there is no merit in  the  argument  advanced  to  apply  the  same
\nproposition to this case.\n<\/p>\n
        20.     The learned counsel for the respondent Insurance  Company  has
\nplaced  reliance  on  a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in
\n2004 (1) TNMAC 172 (Kokila and Another Vs.  A.C.  Rayan and Another) wherein a
\nDivision Bench has considered the case of a minor girl aged 10 years  studying
\nin  III  standard  and enhanced the compensation of Rs.25,000\/- to Rs.75,000\/-
\nfor an accident that took place on 17.07,1992.  He has further argued  that  a
\npositive  consideration was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
\na decision reported in 1  997  2  MLJ  217  (The  Managing  Director,  Dheeran
\nChinnamalai Transport Corporation Vs.  Thangaraju and Another) and an award of
\nRs.75,000\/-  was granted to the deceased aged 13 years at the time of accident
\nwhich took place on 09.12.1993.\n<\/p>\n
        21.     It has to be noted here that the above two decisions are prior
\nto the amendment of the M.V.  Act in 1994 during which period,  there  was  no
\nguideline  in respect of calculating pecuniary damages based on Schedule II of
\n163 of the Motor Vehciles Act, more particularly,  about  the  application  of
\nmultiplier in  a case of this kind.  Therefore, I am of the view that there is
\nno point in applying the decision in those two cases to the case on hand.\n<\/p>\n
        22.     In such a view of the matter, taking into account the  rulings
\nof  the  Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa case and Manju Devi case cited supra and
\nalso the decision of the First Bench of this Court, I do  not  propose  to  go
\ninto any  mathematical  calculation  to  arrive  at  the  compensation.   Even
\notherwise, by the method of taking the notional income of a non-earning person
\nas Rs.15,000\/- per annum  and  applying  multiplier  of  10,  the  quantum  of
\ncompensation would  be Rs.1,50,000\/-.  Thus, it would be proper for this Court
\nto  enhance  the  compensation  from  Rs.50,000\/-  to  Rs.1,50,000\/-  as   the
\nappellants herein have lost their only son.\n<\/p>\n
        23.     For  the  amount awarded by the Tribunal, the rate of interest
\nshall be the same i.e.  12% per annum since it was the rate prevailing at that
\ntime and for the enhanced amount of compensation, the rate of interest will be
\n7.5% per annum.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
cad
\nTo<\/p>\n
1.      The Registrar
\nThe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
\nV Judge, Court of Small Causes
\nChennai.\n<\/p>\n
2.      The Record Keeper
\n        V.R.  Section, High Court of Madras<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court G. Arumugam vs R. Krishnamurthy on 7 June, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 07\/06\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. DHANAPALAN C.M.A.(NPD) No.62 of 1998 1. G. Arumugam 2. Anjalai .. Appellants -Vs- 1. R. Krishnamurthy 2. The New India Assurance Company Limited 38 Anna Salai Madras […]<\/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-57436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nG. Arumugam vs R. Krishnamurthy on 7 June, 2006 - 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\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G. Arumugam vs R. Krishnamurthy on 7 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-31T13:38:41+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G. Arumugam vs R. Krishnamurthy on 7 June, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-31T13:38:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3597,\"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\\\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006\",\"name\":\"G. Arumugam vs R. Krishnamurthy on 7 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-31T13:38:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G. Arumugam vs R. Krishnamurthy on 7 June, 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":"G. Arumugam vs R. Krishnamurthy on 7 June, 2006 - 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\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G. Arumugam vs R. Krishnamurthy on 7 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-31T13:38:41+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G. Arumugam vs R. Krishnamurthy on 7 June, 2006","datePublished":"2006-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-31T13:38:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006"},"wordCount":3597,"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\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006","name":"G. Arumugam vs R. Krishnamurthy on 7 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-31T13:38:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-arumugam-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-7-june-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G. Arumugam vs R. Krishnamurthy on 7 June, 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\/57436","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=57436"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57436\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}