{"id":57879,"date":"2010-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-09-06T23:20:57","modified_gmt":"2017-09-06T17:50:57","slug":"v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"V.Thangammal vs M.Omana Kumar on 9 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
V.Thangammal vs M.Omana Kumar on 9 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 09\/03\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN\n\nC.M.A(MD)No.987 of 2006\nand\nC.M.A(MD)No.988 of 2006\n\nC.M.A(MD)No.987 of 2006\n\n1. V.Thangammal\n\n2.  Aravind Nath Tagore\n\n3.  A.Vijila\n\n4.  A.Sheeba\n\n5.  A.Sarath Babu\n\n6.  A.Arunkanth                          ...  Appellants\n\n\nVs\n\n1.  M.Omana Kumar\n\n2.  The Branch Manager,\n    United India Insurance Company,\n    No.60-2\/607\/1, First Floor,\n    Main Road, Marthandam,\n    Kanyakumari District.\n\n3.  The Branch Manager,\n    National Insurance Company Limited,\n    Angu Vilas Building,\n    North Car Street,\n    Nagercoil -629 001.\n\n4.  Padma Subramanian\n\n5.  Vellammal    \t\t\t...  Respondents\n\n\nC.M.A(MD)No.987 of 2006\n\n1.  Tmt. Seethamma\n\n2.  Miss. Sumeetha\n\n3.  Ajay Kumar,minor,\n    represented by his mother and natural\n    guardian, the first appellant herein\n\n\t(Third Appellant declared as major and\n      guardian is discharged vide order of this Court\n      made in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2009 in C.M.A(MD)No.988 of 2006, dated\n                                                        11.12.2009).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t... Appellants\n1.  M.Omana Kumar\n\n2.  The Branch Manager,\n    United India Insurance Company,\n    No.60-2\/607\/1, First Floor,\n    Main Road, Marthandam,\n    Kanyakumari District.\n\n3.  The Branch Manager,\n    National Insurance Company Limited,\n    Angu Vilas Building,\n    North Car Street,\n    Nagercoil -629 001.\n\n4.  Padma Subramanian\t\t\t  ...Respondents\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nPRAYER IN C.M.A.NO.987 OF 2006\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section\n173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2004\nmade in M.C.O.P.No.1697 of 2001,  on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims\nTribunal (Principal District Court), Tirunelveli.\n\nPRAYER IN C.M.A.NO.988 OF 2006\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section\n173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2004\nmade in M.C.O.P.No.1698 of 2001,  on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims\nTribunal (Principal District Court), Tirunelveli.\n\n!For Appellants    ... Mr.N.Dilip Kumar\nin both cases\n^For Respondent-2  ... Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian\nin both cases          for Mr.R.Srinivasan\n\nFor Respondents    ... No appearance\n1,3 and 4 in both\n cases\n\t* * *\n\n\n:COMMON JUDGMENT\n\n\tC.M.A.No.987 of 2006 is preferred against the  judgment and decree dated\n30.04.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.1697 of 2001,  on the file of the Motor Accidents\nClaims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Tirunelveli.\n\n\t2.  C.M.A.No.988 of 2006\t is preferred against the judgment and\ndecree, dated 30.04.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.1698 of 2001,  on the file of the\nMotor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Tirunelveli.\n\n\t3. On the fateful day 29.10.2001, an accident took place involving two\njeeps bearing Registration Nos. TN 74C 0126 and TN 74Z 8734 and due to the\naccident, out of the four persons travelled in the jeep TN 74C 0126, three died\nand one received grave injuries.  The Jeep TN 74C 0126 was owned by  the fourth\nrespondent and the jeep was insured with the third respondent. Mr.Ayyavu and\nMr.Ayyappan were the two persons  among the three who died in the accident.  The\nfirst respondent is the owner of the jeep TN 74Z 8734 and the jeep was insured\nwith the second respondent\/Insurance Company.\n\n\t4.  The legal heirs of the deceased Ayyavu i.e., his wife, three sons, two\ndaughters, and his mother, filed M.C.O.P.No.1697 of 2001, claiming a sum of\nRs.10 lakhs as compensation.\n\n\t5.  The legal heirs of the deceased Mr.Ayyappan, i..e, his wife, his minor\nson and his minor daughter, filed M.C.O.P.No.1698 of 2001.  The other deceased\nperson and also the injured person also filed claim petitions and all the four\ncases were  tried together and a common order was passed on 30.04.2004,\ndirecting the second respondent Insurance Company to pay compensation.  As\nstated above, the appeals are preferred only against the order made in\nM.C.O.P.Nos. 1697 and 1698 of 2001.\n\n\t6.  In M.C.O.P.No.1697 of 2001, the Tribunal awarded compensation  of\nRs.1,60,000\/- under the following heads:\n\n\t1.  for loss of income        - Rs.1,44,000\/-\n     2.  for loss of consortium       - Rs.  10,000\/-\n     3.  for funeral expenses         - Rs.   6,000\/-\n\t\t\t \t      --------------\n<\/pre>\n
\t\ttotal                 - Rs.1,60,000\n\t\t\t\t      ---------------\n<\/pre>\n
\t7.  In M.C.O.P.No.1698 of 2001, the Tribunal awarded compensation of
\nRs.1,80,000\/- under the following heads:\n<\/p>\n
\t1.  for loss of income         - Rs.1,68,000\/-\n\t2.  for loss of consortium     - Rs.  10,000\/-\n\t3.  for funeral expenses       - Rs.   2,000\/-\n\t\t\t\t       ---------------\n\t\t\t\ttotal  - Rs.1,80,000\/-\n\t\t\t \t       ---------------\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t8.  In both the cases, the Tribunal  awarded 9% interest from the date of
\nthe application along with costs. The appeals are filed seeking enhancement of
\ncompensation for the disallowed portion of the claim.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.  Heard Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants and
\nMr.K.Baskara Pandian, the learned counsel for the second respondent\/Insurance
\nCompany, representing the learned counsel, Mr.R.Srinivasan.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.  The Tribunal found that the accident was due to the rash and
\nnegligent driving of the driver of the jeep owned by the first respondent.
\nHence, the Tribunal directed the second respondent\/Insurance Company to pay the
\ncompensation. The Insurance Company did not have any grievance over the award
\nand had complied with the award and they did not choose to file any appeal
\nagainst the said awards.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.  The learned counsel for the appellants submits that, in the joint
\ntrial, P.W.6, a partner of one Sree Devi Finance Company was examined and he
\ncategorically deposed that both the deceased persons, namely, Mr.Ayyavu and
\nMr.Ayyappan were the Commission Agents of the Finance Company. It is submitted
\nthat the original Ledger was produced before the Tribunal, wherein, the
\nCommission paid to the Commission Agents were recorded and the Xerox copy of
\nsome of the  paper of the Ledger regarding the payment of Commission for the
\nperiod from April 2000 to March 2001 was marked as Ex.P20.  The details of
\npayment of commission paid to both the deceased persons were recorded in Ex.P20.
\nEx.P18 is the statement of payment of commission paid to Mr.Ayyavu and  Ex.P18
\nwas prepared based on Ex.P20. Likewise, Ex.P19 is the statement relating to the
\npayment of Commission  made to the deceased Ayyappan and Ex.P19 was prepared
\nbased on Ex.P20.  As per Ex.P18, the average earning of Mr.Ayyavu was
\nRs.8957.50\/- p.m. The average earning of the deceased Ayyappan as per Ex.P19 was
\nRs.7292.50\/-. But, the Trial Court  refused to accept the evidence given by
\nP.W.6 on the earnings of the deceased. The Tribunal fixed the monthly earnings
\nat Rs.1500\/-p.m. and thereafter, after making one third deduction towards their
\npersonal expenses, arrived at Rs.1000\/- as loss of dependency to the claimants
\nin both the cases.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the reason given
\nby the Tribunal for disbelieving the commission paid to the deceased persons was
\nthat in Ex.P20, the names of the commission agents were not stated, while it is
\nstated that the commissions were paid. The other reason is that when the
\nCommission amount  was paid through vouchers, those vouchers were not produced.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.  The learned counsel for the appellants submits that when P.W.6, a
\npartner of the finance company deposed before the Tribunal and stated that
\nEx.P20 was a xerox copy  of the Ledger recording payment of commission and also
\nproduced the original Ledger, the Tribunal was not correct in stating that the
\nnames of the commission agents were not recorded and therefore, it could not be
\ntaken as the earnings of the deceased persons namely, Ayyavu and Ayyappan. No
\nsuch technical approach could  be adopted in cases relating to Motor Accident
\nClaims.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.  It is further submitted that the Tribunal was not in doubt  about the
\nemployment of the deceased persons as commission agents in the finance company.
\nAccording to the Tribunal, the earnings of the commission agents were not
\nsatisfactorily established.  The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
\nwhen P.W.6 was examined and Ex.P18,19 and 20 were marked, the Tribunal was not
\ncorrect in not accepting the commission amount that was paid to the deceased as
\nper those records.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The learned counsel further submits that taking Rs.1500\/- as monthly
\nearnings is on the lower side and admittedly, these persons travelled in the
\njeep of the finance company and the finance company was involved in lending
\nmoney and was involved in large scale money  transactions.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.  The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that when
\nthere were seven dependants in the case of Mr.Ayyavu, the Tribunal   was not
\ncorrect in making one third deduction and it should have made one fifth
\ndeduction towards personal expenses for arriving at the loss of dependency.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second
\nrespondent\/Insurance Company seeks to sustain the awards  and submits that the
\nTribunal gave a reasoned award that could not be disturbed in the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.  I have considered the submissions made on the learned counsels
\nappearing on either side and perused the records.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.  The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants are
\nwell founded. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that while
\nascertaining the income of the deceased persons from the records that was
\navailable on record, the Tribunal has to undertake an  exercise to estimate the
\nincome of the deceased persons and it may even make a conjecture in determining
\nthe income.  It is well<\/p>\n
accepted that the income of the deceased could not be accurately ascertained and
\nthe Tribunal could not insist on strict proof to establish the income.  For this
\npurpose, the learned counsel for the appellants relies on the following
\ndecisions of the Honourable Apex Court:\n<\/p>\n
\t1.  Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation .vs.  Shanthi Devi and
\nothers reported in (2009) 4 SCC 355<\/p>\n
\t(2) Syed Basheer and others .vs. Mohammed Jameel and another reported in
\n(2009) 2 SCC 225: and<\/p>\n
\t(3) Ashwani Kumar Mishra .vs. P.Muniam Babu and others reported in (1999)
\n4 scc 22 .\n<\/p>\n
\t20.  In my view, the Tribunal could not have totally rejected the evidence
\nof P.W.6 r\/w Ex.P18,Ex.P19 and Ex.P20 and proceeded to take only Rs.1500\/- as
\nthe monthly earnings. I have perused those records and there is large variations
\nin the  payment of commission.  As stated above, in Ex.P18, the payment of
\ncommission for every month from April 2000 to March 2001 is stated and the
\npayment received by the deceased Ayyavu in February 2001 was Rs.12,450\/-, while
\nhe received only Rs.930\/- in October 2000. Hence, the average  payment of
\ncommission  for 12 months was arrived at  Rs.8927.50\/-. Likewise, the average
\nof the payment of commission paid to  Mr.Ayyappan was Rs.7292.50\/-, as per
\nEx.P19. Since the variation is large, it may not be safe also to take the
\naverage.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.  The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in New
\nIndia Assurance Company Limited .vs.  Smt.Kalpana and others reported in 2007
\n(1) TNMAC 1(SC), the Honourable Apex Court  fixed Rs.3000\/- as monthly income
\nafter deductions as the loss of dependency in cases where the monthly earnings
\nwas not able to be established. In such cases, it was taken that Rs.100\/- could
\nbe earned by a coolie.  By adopting similar approach, the Tribunal at least
\ncould have taken Rs.3000\/- as the loss of dependency after deductions.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. In fact, the learned counsel for the second respondent\/Insurance
\nCompany has no serious dispute in taking Rs.3000\/- as the loss of dependency,
\nafter deductions.  However, the learned counsel for the second
\nrespondent\/Insurance Company  has objection for taking the earnings  from Ex.P18
\nand Ex.P19.  In these circumstances, I am inclined to take Rs.3000\/- as the loss
\nof monthly dependency.  The whole controversy in the appeals are relating only
\nto  earnings of the deceased and in the case of Ayyavu, the Tribunal adopted
\nmultiplier ’12’ and in the case of deceased Ayyappan, the Tribunal adopted ’14’
\nas multiplier.   Hence, by applying the same multiplier, in the case of deceased
\nAyyavu, the loss of income would be Rs.3000x12x12= Rs.4,32,000\/-. In the case of
\nMr.Iyyappan, it would be Rs.3000x12x14=Rs.5,04,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t23.  The learned counsel for the appellants submits that while Rs.10,000\/-
\nwas awarded as loss of consortium to the wife, nothing was awarded towards loss
\nof love and affection to other claimants.  The learned counsel for the
\nappellants submits that each claimants in both the appeals should be given at
\nleast Rs.10,000\/- each towards loss of love and affection.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. The learned counsel for the second respondent\/Insurance company has
\nnot seriously disputed for granting the said amount towards loss of love and
\naffection, particularly when Rs.10,000\/-  was given to the wife alone.  Hence,
\neach claimant is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000\/- towards loss of love and affection
\nin both M.C.O.P.No.1697 and 1698 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.  Hence the following compensation is fixed in M.C.O.P.No.1697 of 2001
\nand 1698 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
M.C.O.P.No.1697 of 2001(C.M.A.No.987 of 2006-In the case of deceased Ayyavu)<\/p>\n
\t1.  for loss of income      – Rs.4,32,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     2.  for loss of consortium     - Rs.  10,000\/-\n     3.  for loss of love and       - Rs.   60,000\/-\n         affection at the rate\n         of Rs.10,000\/-for each\n         claimants\n\t4.  for funeral expenses    - Rs.    6,000\/-\n\t\t\t\t    ----------------\n\t\ttotal               -  Rs.5,08,000\/-\n\t\t\t\t    ----------------\n\n<\/pre>\n
M.C.O.P.No.1698 of 2001(C.M.A.No.988 of 2006-In the case of deceased Ayyappan)<\/p>\n
\t1.  for loss of income      – Rs.5,04,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
        2.  for loss of consortium  – Rs.  10,000\/-<\/p>\n
\n\t3.  for loss of love and\n\t    affection               - Rs.  20,000\/-\n\t4.  for funeral expenses    - Rs.   2,000\n\t\t\t\t   ----------------\n\t\t\ttotal       - Rs.5,36,000\/-\n\t\t\t\t    ----------------\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t26.   The enhanced amount of compensation  in M.C.O.P.No.1697 of 2001
\ncomes to  Rs.3,48,000\/-(Rs.5,08,000 – Rs.1,60,000\/-) and  in M.C.O.P.No.1698 of
\n2001, comes to Rs.3,56,000\/-(Rs.5,36,000\/–Rs.1,80,000\/-). The second
\nrespondent\/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount
\nwith 9% interest from the date of the application before the Tribunal, within a
\nperiod of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
\nenhanced amount would be apportioned among the claimants in the same rate as
\napportioned by the Tribunal. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
vsn<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
\n(Principal District Court),
\nTirunelveli.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court V.Thangammal vs M.Omana Kumar on 9 March, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09\/03\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN C.M.A(MD)No.987 of 2006 and C.M.A(MD)No.988 of 2006 C.M.A(MD)No.987 of 2006 1. V.Thangammal 2. Aravind Nath Tagore 3. A.Vijila 4. A.Sheeba 5. A.Sarath Babu 6. A.Arunkanth … Appellants Vs 1. […]<\/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-57879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nV.Thangammal vs M.Omana Kumar on 9 March, 2010 - 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\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Thangammal vs M.Omana Kumar on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-06T17:50:57+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Thangammal vs M.Omana Kumar on 9 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-06T17:50:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1617,\"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\\\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010\",\"name\":\"V.Thangammal vs M.Omana Kumar on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-06T17:50:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Thangammal vs M.Omana Kumar on 9 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"V.Thangammal vs M.Omana Kumar on 9 March, 2010 - 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\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Thangammal vs M.Omana Kumar on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-06T17:50:57+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Thangammal vs M.Omana Kumar on 9 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-06T17:50:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010"},"wordCount":1617,"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\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010","name":"V.Thangammal vs M.Omana Kumar on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-06T17:50:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-thangammal-vs-m-omana-kumar-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Thangammal vs M.Omana Kumar on 9 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/57879","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=57879"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57879\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}