{"id":74495,"date":"2009-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009"},"modified":"2017-09-29T17:04:41","modified_gmt":"2017-09-29T11:34:41","slug":"s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"S.Ramamorthy vs M\/S. Sriparasakthi Fire Works on 4 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Ramamorthy vs M\/S. Sriparasakthi Fire Works on 4 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated: 04\/08\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.689 of 2009\n\n1. S.Ramamorthy\n2. R.Chitra\t\t... Appellants\/Petitioners\n\n\t\nVs\n\n1. M\/s. Sriparasakthi Fire Works\n   through its proprietor,\n\n\n2. M\/s. The New India Assurance\n   Company Limited through\n   its Branch Manager,\n   Sivakasi,\n   Virudhunagar District.\t ... Respondents\/Respondents\n\n\n\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against\nthe judgment and award dated 13.03.2008, passed in M.C.O.P.No.5 of 2006 by the\nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar.\n\t\n!For Appellants    ... Mr.N.V.Suresh Kumar\n^For Respondents   ... D.Sivaraman for R.2\t\t\t\n\t               No appearance for R.1.\n\n* * * * *\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the claimants
\nagainst the award of Rs.60,000\/-(Rupees sixty thousand only)  as against their
\nclaim of Rs.2,50,000\/-(Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only).\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The facts of the case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe case of the appellants, (herein after referred to as claimants) is
\nthat on 28.09.2005, the mini door auto belonging to the first respondent hit the
\nchild of the claimants while reversing the said auto.  The child which was 11
\nmonths old, died on the spot.  Hence, the claimants preferred the claim petition
\nclaiming compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000\/-(Rupees two lakhs and fifty
\nthousand only).\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The second respondent Insurance company contested the claim petition
\ncontending that the second appellant, the mother of the child was the sole cause
\nfor the alleged accident.  Moreover, the second appellant  also took the stand
\nthat the accident took, which is not public place and that the petition under
\nMotor Vehicles Act is not maintainable and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to
\ntry the matter.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. On enquiry, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred because
\nof the negligent act of the driver of the mini door auto, owned by the first
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. As far as quantum is concerned, relying upon the judgment  reported in
\n2007 ACJ 2816, a sum of Rs.60,000\/-(Rupees sixty thousand only) was awarded.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Aggrieved by the award only, the present appeal has been preferred by
\nthe parents.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Mr.N.V.Sureshkumar, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that
\nthe appellants lost their only child and the Tribunal came to the conclusion
\nthat because of the negligence of the driver of the first respondent’s vehicle,
\nbut ought to have granted the amount sought for in the claim petition.  The
\nlearned Counsel further submitted that award of meagre amount of Rs.60,000\/-
\n(Rupees sixty thousand only) is inadequate considering the preciousness of the
\nbaby which was lost by the parents at the age of 11 months.  Accordingly, he
\nsought for enhancement.  He relied upon the  following decisions of the
\nHonourable Supreme Court:\n<\/p>\n
\t(1) R.K.Malik and Another Vs. Kiran Pal and another reported in 2009(1) TN
\nMAC 593(SC).\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Satender and Others, reported
\nin 2007(1) T.A.C. 11 (S.C)
\n\t(3) D.S.Muralikrishnan and another Vs. Metropolitan Transport
\nCorporation(Chennai Division-I)Limited,  reported in 2004(2) TN MAC 150 (DB)
\n\t(4) Sri Bhola Das Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another
\nreported in 2005(2) T.A.C. 196(Calcutta), and
\n\t(5) Divisional Controller, B.T.S. Division, Vs. Vidya Shinde and another
\nreported in 2004(2) T.A.C. 574(Karnataka) and pleaded for enhancement.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the second
\nrespondent\/Insurance Company submitted that it is very difficult to ascertain
\nthe future prospects of the child and especially in this case, the child was
\naged about 11 months and hence, the Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of
\nRs.60,000\/-(Rupees sixty thousand only) relying upon the judgment of the
\nHonourable Supreme Court reported in 2007 ACJ 2816. He also relied upon the
\njudgment of the Honourable Supreme Court passed in  Kaushalya Devi Vs. Sri Karan
\nArora and Others reported in AIR 2007 SC 1912 wherein a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/-
\n(Rupees one lakh only) only was granted for the death of 14 years old minor
\nchild and the same was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court.  In view of
\nthe judgment, there cannot be any exorbitant amount to be awarded for the death
\nof the 11 months old baby.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. As far as the negligence is concerned, it has attained the finality as
\nthere is no appeal by the Insurance Company hence, there is no necessity to go
\ninto that aspect.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The Tribunal found that though the place of occurrence situated within
\nthe campus of the factory, based on Exs.R.2 and R.3, the Tribunal found that
\nanybody can have access to the place  and found that the place of  occurrence is
\na public place.  The Tribunal based on the judgment of 2007 ACJ 2816, awarded a
\nsum of Rs.60,000\/-(Rupees sixty thousand only).\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in R.K.Malik and Another
\nVs. Kiran Pal and another reported in 2009(1) TN MAC 593(SC), throws more light
\nregarding death of the child and what should be the criteria to be followed.  In
\nthat case, school children proceeding to school in a bus, fell in river causing
\ndeath of 29 children.  The Tribunal took the notional income of Rs.15,000\/-
\n(Rupees fifteen thousand only) per annum as per Second Schedule and deducted
\nRs.5,000\/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards personal expenses and arrived at
\nthe loss of dependency at Rs.10,000\/-(Rupees ten thousand only) and adopted
\nmultiplier ’15’ for the children at the age group of 10 to 15 and awarded a sum
\nof Rs.1,50,000\/-(Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) and  Rs.1,60,000\/-
\n(Rupees one lakh and sixty thousand only) for the age group of 15 to 18 years.
\nOn appeal by the parents, the High Court awarded Rs.75,000\/-(Rupees seventy five
\nthousand only)additionally in each case towards non-pecuniary damages.  Again
\non, further appeal, the Honourable Supreme Court,  awarded a sum of Rs.75,000\/-
\n(Rupees seventy five thousand only) in each case  towards future prospects.   In
\nthat case, the Honourable Supreme Court, analysed the earlier cases including
\nLata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2001(8) SCC 187, M.S.Grewal Vs.
\nDeepchand Soot reported in 2001(8) SCC 151.  In the aforesaid case, the
\nHonourable Supreme Court took into account the pecuniary loss, non-pecuniary
\nloss and future prospects of the child.  In total, for a child which was aged
\nabout 15 to 18 years   a sum of Rs.3,00,000\/-(Rupees three lakhs only) was
\ngranted.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The other judgement reported in 2007(1) T.A.C.11, the Tribunal took
\nthe notional income for the death of the 9 year old minor boy, at Rs.30,000\/-
\n(Rupees thirty thousand only) per annum and deducted one-third towards personal
\nexpenses and fixed the financial dependency of parents at Rs.20,000\/-(Rupees
\ntwenty thousand only) and applied multiplier ’17” and calculated the  total loss
\nof income at Rs.3,40,000\/-(Rupees three lakhs and forty thousand only).  The
\nHonourable Supreme Court, on appeal, reduced the award amount to Rs.1,80,000\/-
\n(Rupees one lakhs and eighty thousand only)and observed that now, the income of
\nthe child being capable of assessment on estimated basis nor financial loss
\nsuffered by the parents was capable of mathematical completion.  In another case
\na Division Bench of this Court, the Honourable Supreme Court in 2007(2) TN MAC
\n41 for the death of 14 years old minor, a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/-(Rupees one lakh
\nonly) was awarded and the same was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court,
\nobserving that in case of young children, in view of their income at the time of
\ntheir death cannot be calculated.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. In the 2004(2) TN MAC 150 the Division Bench of this Court, for the
\ndeath of minor child, 11 months age minor child, 75% was awarded by the
\nTribunal.  After applying the rule of multiplier and notional income, based on
\nApex Court judgment passed in Lata Wadhwa  Vs. State of Bihar reported in
\n2001(8) SCC 187, the Division Bench fixed the monthly income at Rs.2,000\/-
\n(Rupees two thousand only) per month.  Since, the child was a girl, multiplier
\n“6” was applied.  Taking her age 18 years, as her age of earning and her age 24
\nas the age of her marriage and applying multiplier “6”,
\nRs.2000x12x6=Rs.1,44,000\/-, the parents  are awarded a sum of Rs.1,44,000\/-
\n(Rupees one lakh and forty four thousand only) and along with other amount, a
\nsum of Rs.16,000\/-(Rupees sixteen thousand only) was awarded.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. In Lata Wadhwa case, the Honourable Supreme Court, applied the
\nmultiplier and notional income was taken into account.  Similarly in 2004(2) TN
\nMAC 150, also, the multiplier was adopted and notional income was also taken
\ninto account.  In 2007 ACJ 2816 wherein only, a very meagre amount was given.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments, the Honourable
\nSupreme Court adopted multiplier from the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles
\nAct and the notional income was also taken and accordingly the amount was
\nawarded.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. This case is not an extraordinary case to deviate from the yardsticks
\ngiven in the above judgments.  As per the Second Schedule, up to the age of 15,
\nthe proper multiplier should be 15.  Taking into consideration  the above
\njudgments especially R.K.Malik and Another Vs. Kiran Pal and another reported in
\n2009(1) TN MAC 593(SC) and as per the Second Schedule, notional income of
\nRs.15,000\/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only)per annum is fixed.  Since the age upto
\n15 years, the multiplier according to the second Schedule is ’15’, the same is
\napplied and a sum of Rs.2,25,000\/-(Rupees two lakhs and twenty five thousand
\nonly)  will be the loss of income towards the death of the minor. Regarding
\nother amounts are concerned, a sum of Rs.5,000\/-(Rupees five thousand only)
\ntowards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.20,000\/-(Rupees twenty thousand only)
\ntowards loss of love and affection and totally a sum of Rs.2,50,000\/-(Rupees two
\nlakhs and fifty thousand only) was awarded.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The pain and suffering the mother undergoes while carrying child in
\nher womb and during  delivery of a child are un-comparable.  Delivery is a
\nsecond birth to the mother.  By the loss of the child, the entire exercise
\nbecame futile.  Immortal “THIRUVALLUVAR” in his “THIRUKKURAL” gave importance to
\none’s children and wrote 10 couplets under:\n<\/p>\n
“kf;fl;BgW “BLESSED WITH CHILDREN”\n<\/p>\n
” Nd;w bghGjpd; bghpJtf;Fk; jd; kfidr; rhd;Bwhd;\n<\/p>\n
vdf; Bfl;l jha;”\n<\/p>\n
means “A mother rejoicer at the birth of son-\n<\/p>\n
\tBut even more when he is praised as wise man”\n<\/p>\n
When such is the position, the pain and suffering and loss in all aspects
\nbecause of the death of the child cannot be estimated.  Any amount of
\ncompensation cannot console the parents.  In any event, eventualities of the
\nlife and also future prospects has been considered by this Court for granting
\nthe compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. No amount can compensate the loss of the first child of the parents.
\nMerely because the child was lost, it does not mean that this Court cannot
\nconsider future prospects, financial dependency of the parents.  Loss of child
\nwould mean loss of love, affection, care and comfort.  The chemistry involved in
\nthe love and care of the parents and delightfulness, warmth of the child cannot
\nbe got from any other source.  Can “Kamadhenu” or “Karpagavriksha” be equal to a
\nchild? It cannot be.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal namely Rs.60,000\/-(Rupees sixty
\nthousand only) is enhanced to Rs.2,50,000\/-(Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand
\nonly).  The aforesaid amount will attract the interest at the rate of 7.5%.
\nAccordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. Mr. R.Manisankar, on behalf of Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned Counsel for the
\nrespondent, seeks four weeks’ time to deposit the award amount before the
\nTribunal.  Accordingly, four weeks’ time is granted and the Tribunal is directed
\nto pay the entire award amount to the appellants within a period of one week
\nfrom thereof.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that for the claim of
\nRs.2,00,000\/-(Rupees two lakhs only) the Court fee was paid.  For the excess
\namount, the appellants have to pay the proper Court fee and hence, the same is
\nordered.\n<\/p>\n
ssl<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
\nPrincipal District Judge, Virudhunagar.\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Ramamorthy vs M\/S. Sriparasakthi Fire Works on 4 August, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 04\/08\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.M.A.(MD)No.689 of 2009 1. S.Ramamorthy 2. R.Chitra … Appellants\/Petitioners Vs 1. M\/s. Sriparasakthi Fire Works through its proprietor, 2. M\/s. The New India Assurance Company Limited through […]<\/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-74495","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Ramamorthy vs M\/S. Sriparasakthi Fire Works on 4 August, 2009 - 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\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Ramamorthy vs M\/S. Sriparasakthi Fire Works on 4 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-29T11:34:41+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=\"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\\\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Ramamorthy vs M\\\/S. Sriparasakthi Fire Works on 4 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-29T11:34:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1895,\"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\\\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009\",\"name\":\"S.Ramamorthy vs M\\\/S. Sriparasakthi Fire Works on 4 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-29T11:34:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Ramamorthy vs M\\\/S. Sriparasakthi Fire Works on 4 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"S.Ramamorthy vs M\/S. Sriparasakthi Fire Works on 4 August, 2009 - 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\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Ramamorthy vs M\/S. Sriparasakthi Fire Works on 4 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-29T11:34:41+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Ramamorthy vs M\/S. Sriparasakthi Fire Works on 4 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-29T11:34:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009"},"wordCount":1895,"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\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009","name":"S.Ramamorthy vs M\/S. Sriparasakthi Fire Works on 4 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-29T11:34:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-ramamorthy-vs-ms-sriparasakthi-fire-works-on-4-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Ramamorthy vs M\/S. Sriparasakthi Fire Works on 4 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/74495","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=74495"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74495\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74495"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74495"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74495"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}