{"id":70428,"date":"2010-04-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010"},"modified":"2015-04-17T06:51:46","modified_gmt":"2015-04-17T01:21:46","slug":"murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Murugeswari vs The Managing Director on 26 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Murugeswari vs The Managing Director on 26 April, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated: 26\/04\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.1569 of 2004\nand\nC.M.A.(MD)No.387 of 2005\n\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.1569 of 2004\n\n1. Murugeswari\n2. Kaleeswaran\n3. Minor Kalaiselvi\n4. Petchiammal\t\t     ... Appellants \/ Petitioners\n(2nd appellant declared as\nmajor by order dated 29.06.09)\n\nVs\n\nThe Managing Director,\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,\n(Madurai Division -5) Limited,\nBlock-9, Collector's complex,\nVirudhunagar\t\t     ... Respondent\/Respondent\n\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order\nand decree made in M.C.O.P.No.16 of 2003, dated 12.02.2004, on the file of the\nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District\nat Srivilliputtur.\n\n!For Appellants  ... Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu\n^For Respondent\t ... Mr.M.Prakash\n\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.387 of 2005\n\nThe Managing Director,\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,\n6\/377, Madurai Road,\nAatchiyar valagam,\nVirudhunagar-626 002.\t    ... Appellant\/Respondent\n\nVs\n\n1. Murugeswari\n2. Kaleeswaran\n3. Minor Kalaiselvi\n4. Petchiammal\t\t    ... Respondents \/ Petitioners\n(2nd appellant declared as\nmajor by order dated 29.06.09)\n\n\n\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment\nand award made in M.C.O.P.No.16 of 2003, dated 12.02.2004, on the file of the\nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District\nat Srivilliputtur.\n\n!For Appellants  ... Mr.M.Prakash\n^For Respondents ... Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu\n\n\n\t\t\t* * * * *\n\n:COMMON JUDGMENT\n\n\n\tThese Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed  against the judgment\nand award made in M.C.O.P.No.16 of 2003, dated 12.02.2004, on the file of the\nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District\nat Srivilliputtur.\n\n\t2. The appellants in C.M.A.(MD)NO.1569 of 2004 are claimants in\nM.C.O.P.No.16 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,\nPrincipal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur. They claimed\ncompensation of Rs.5,00,000\/- as compensation for the death of the husband of\nthe first appellant.  The appellants 2 and 3 are the children born to the first\nappellant through the deceased.  The fourth appellant is the mother of the\ndeceased. The Tribunal awarded Rs.3,10,000\/- as compensation. The appeal is\nfiled by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.3,10,000\/- to\nRs.5,00,000\/-\n\n\t3. The appellant in C.M.A.(MD)No.387 of 2005 is the Transport Corporation\nquestioning the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in\nM.C.O.P.NO.16 of 2003, on the ground that the deceased alone was rash and\nnegligent in driving the two wheeler and that the driver of the bus was not\nresponsible for the accident.\n\n\t4. On 13.12.2001, when Mr.M.Selvaraj was proceeding in a two wheeler from\nSouth to North in Rajapalayam-Srivilliputhur main road, the bus belonging to the\nTransport Corporation hit him behind the two wheeler and Mr.M.Selvaraj died due\nto the accident. He was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident.\n\n\t5. Before the Tribunal, three witnesses were examined on the side of the\nclaimants.  The first witness was the first claimant, the second witness was an\neye-witness and the third witness was the owner of the grocery shop, where the\ndeceased was employed.  The documents Exs.P.1 to P.14 were marked.  On the side\nof the respondent Transport Corporation, the conductor of the bus was examined\nand no document was marked.  The Tribunal passed the award holding that the\ndriver of the Transport Corporation was rash and negligent in driving the bus\nand caused the accident and death.\n\n\t6. Heard Mr.M.Prakash, learned Counsel for Transport Corporation and\nMr.M.Thirunavakkarasu, learned Counsel for claimants.\n\n\t7. The Transport Corporation questions the award that the Tribunal\ncommitted error in holding that the driver of the Transport Corporation was\nresponsible for the accident.  According to him, the bus proceeded on the main\nroad i.e. Rajapalayam-Srivilliputhur main road.  While so, the two wheeler came\nin a side road behind a lorry and entered in the main road without noticing the\nbus and that therefore the rider of the two wheeler was responsible for the\naccident.  The learned Counsel relies on the deposition of R.W.1, the conductor\nof the bus.\n\n\t8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the claimants submits that\nthe Tribunal rendered a categorical finding based on the evidence both\ndocumentary and oral that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent in\ndriving the bus.  The Tribunal relied on the deposition of eye-witness P.W.2 and\nalso the fact that the driver of the bus was prosecuted for causing the\naccident.  It is also submitted that the driver was not examined and the\nconductor admitted that the driver was dismissed for this accident and also for\nsome other misconduct.\n\n\t9. I have considered the submissions on either side and perused the\ndocuments.\n\n\t10. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the claimants, the\nTribunal gave its reasons for its finding that the driver of the bus was\nresponsible for the accident.  The Tribunal rightly disbelieved the evidence of\nthe conductor.  Admittedly, the driver of the bus was not examined.  Moreover,\nthe driver was dismissed from Transport Corporation for causing the accident.\nP.W.2 was an eye-witness and he deposed categorically that the driver of the bus\nwas rash and negligent in driving the bus and hit behind the two wheeler and\ncaused the accident.  Ex.P.1 was the First Information Report lodged against the\ndriver of the bus and E.P.4 was the charge sheet against the driver before the\nCriminal Court.  Taking into account the entirety of the evidence on record, the\nTribunal correctly came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was\nresponsible for the accident.\n\n\t11. I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal that the\ndriver of bus was rash and negligent in driving the bus.\n\n\t12. The next question that has to be considered is as to whether the\nclaimants are entitled to enhanced compensation.\n\n\t13. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,10,000\/- under the following heads:\n\n\t(i)   for loss of income\tRs.2,88,000\n\t(ii)  for love and affection\tRs.  20,000\n\t(iii) for funeral expenses\tRs.   2,000\n\t\t\t\t\t-----------\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\tTotal\t\tRs.3,10,000\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. The learned Counsel for the claimants strenuously contends that the<br \/>\nTribunal was not justified in taking Rs.2,250\/- as monthly earnings of the<br \/>\ndeceased.  According to him, even a coolie would earn Rs.100\/- per day.  When<br \/>\nthe Tribunal took into account the future prospects of the deceased, the<br \/>\nTribunal was not correct in taking Rs.2,250\/- alone, including future prospects.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. The learned Counsel further submits that as per the decision of the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Apex Court in Sarala Varma case reported in 2009(1) TNMAC 1, that 50% of<br \/>\nthe salary should be taken towards future prospects.  He relied on many<br \/>\ndecisions in support of his submissions that Rs.3,000\/- should be taken as<br \/>\nmonthly earnings when the monthly earnings was not established by sufficient<br \/>\nmaterials.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Transport Corporation<br \/>\nsubmits that there is no infirmity in the award of the Tribunal in fixing<br \/>\nRs.2,250\/- as monthly earnings.  It is stated that the Tribunal considered in<br \/>\ndetail about the monthly earnings and that therefore, there is no reason to<br \/>\ninterfere with the award.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. The owner of the shop was examined as P.W.3. He deposed that the<br \/>\ndeceased was paid Rs.1,915\/- as monthly wages at the time of his death.  Ex.P.14<br \/>\nwas produced to establish the same.  Apart from this monthly salary, P.W.3 also<br \/>\nstated that the deceased was paid Rs.30\/- per day as daily batta and he was paid<br \/>\nbonus at the rate of two months wages per year.  This was disbelieved by the<br \/>\nTribunal on the ground that no document was produced.  P.W.3 also deposed that<br \/>\nthe deceased was looking after his land and for that he was paid ten bags of<br \/>\nrice per year.  This was also disbelieved by the Tribunal on the ground that no<br \/>\ndocument was produced to show that he was given ten bags of rice per year for<br \/>\nlooking after his lands.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. I am of the view that there is some force in the submissions made by<br \/>\nthe learned Counsel for the claimants.  The learned Counsel for the claimants<br \/>\nsubmits that in grocery shops, registers are not be maintained for payment of<br \/>\ndaily batta and for payment of bonus.  When P.W.3 himself deposed before the<br \/>\nTribunal, the Tribunal should have considered the same.  In arriving the monthly<br \/>\nearnings of a deceased person, the Tribunal has to involve in guess work,<br \/>\nparticularly when the deceased persons were employed in unorganised sector.<br \/>\nP.W.3 deposed that the grocery shop was in existence from 1958 and that the<br \/>\ndeceased was in employment from 1977.  Taking into account these facts, the<br \/>\nTribunal thought of taking into account the future prospects.  If it is so, the<br \/>\nTribunal should have taken 50% of the last drawn salary towards future prospects<br \/>\nas held by the Honourable Apex Court in Sarala Varma case referred to above.  If<br \/>\nit is done, then the monthly earnings could be taken as Rs.3,000\/- for the<br \/>\npurpose of computation of compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. Even otherwise as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\nclaimants that the Honourable Apex Court held in New India Assurance Company<br \/>\nLimited Vs. Kalpana reported in 2007 (1) CTC 523 and in National Insurance<br \/>\nCompany Ltd. v. Khimlibai reported in 2009 (5) CTC 187 that where the monthly<br \/>\nearnings could not be established by proper evidence, Rs.3,000\/- could be taken<br \/>\nas monthly earnings.  In those cases, the accident arose much prior to 2001,<br \/>\nwhile in this case, the accident arose in the year 2001.  Therefore, either by<br \/>\ngiving future prospects at 50% of the last drawn wages or otherwise, Rs.3,000\/-<br \/>\ncould be taken for the purpose of computation of compensation, as rightly<br \/>\ncontended by the learned Counsel for the claimants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20. I am therefore inclined to take Rs.3,000\/- as monthly earnings of the<br \/>\ndeceased for the purpose of computation of compensation.  In my considered view,<br \/>\nthe Tribunal was not correct in fixing Rs.2,250\/- as monthly earnings of the<br \/>\ndeceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21. Further, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\nclaimants, the Tribunal was not correct in deducting 1\/3rd towards the personal<br \/>\nexpenses as there were four dependants.  The Tribunal should have deducted only<br \/>\n1\/4th towards the personal expenses and Rs.2,250\/- could be taken for the<br \/>\npurpose of computation of loss of income.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t22. When &#8220;16&#8221; was taken as multiplier by the Tribunal, the learned Counsel<br \/>\nfor the Transport Corporation submits that the proper multiplier could be &#8220;15&#8221;<br \/>\nas per the decision of Sarala Varma Case, referred to above. Hence, &#8220;15&#8221; is<br \/>\ntaken as multiplier and the loss of dependency is worked out at Rs.2,250 x 12 x<br \/>\n15=Rs.4,05,000\/-.  As far as the other heads awarded by the Tribunal are<br \/>\nconcerned, there is no dispute.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t23. Hence, the award is modified by this Court as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i)   for loss of income\tRs.4,05,000\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii)  for love and affection\tRs.  20,000\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) for funeral expenses\tRs.   2,000\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\tTotal\t\tRs.4,27,000\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t24. The Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced<br \/>\ncompensation of Rs.1,17,000\/-(Rs.4,27,000 &#8211; Rs.3,10,000) within a period of six<br \/>\nweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with interest at 9%<br \/>\nfrom the date of application to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.16 of 2003, on the file<br \/>\nof the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar<br \/>\nDistrict at Srivilliputtur. The enhanced compensation could be apportioned<br \/>\namong the claimants in the same ratio as done by the Tribunal. The claimants are<br \/>\npermitted to withdraw the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t25. Accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of. No<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>Ssl \/ r n s<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,<br \/>\nThe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,<br \/>\nPrincipal District Judge, Virudhunagar District<br \/>\nat Srivilliputtur.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Murugeswari vs The Managing Director on 26 April, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 26\/04\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN C.M.A.(MD)No.1569 of 2004 and C.M.A.(MD)No.387 of 2005 C.M.A.(MD)No.1569 of 2004 1. Murugeswari 2. Kaleeswaran 3. Minor Kalaiselvi 4. Petchiammal &#8230; Appellants \/ Petitioners (2nd appellant declared as major [&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-70428","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>Murugeswari vs The Managing Director on 26 April, 2010 - 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\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Murugeswari vs The Managing Director on 26 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-17T01:21:46+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Murugeswari vs The Managing Director on 26 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-17T01:21:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":948,\"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\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Murugeswari vs The Managing Director on 26 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-17T01:21:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Murugeswari vs The Managing Director on 26 April, 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:\/\/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":"Murugeswari vs The Managing Director on 26 April, 2010 - 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\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Murugeswari vs The Managing Director on 26 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-17T01:21:46+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Murugeswari vs The Managing Director on 26 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-17T01:21:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010"},"wordCount":948,"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\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010","name":"Murugeswari vs The Managing Director on 26 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-17T01:21:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugeswari-vs-the-managing-director-on-26-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Murugeswari vs The Managing Director on 26 April, 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:\/\/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\/70428","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=70428"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70428\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70428"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70428"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70428"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}