{"id":83563,"date":"2008-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008"},"modified":"2015-02-10T08:46:20","modified_gmt":"2015-02-10T03:16:20","slug":"the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Branch Manager vs A.Mary Imelda Jayaseeli on 18 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Branch Manager vs A.Mary Imelda Jayaseeli on 18 March, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 18\/03\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.428 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD) No.2 of 2008\n\n\nThe Branch Manager,\nThe New India Assurance Company Ltd,\n202,204, Mahatma Gandhi Road,\nPondicherry-605 001.\t\t\t\t   .. Appellant\n\nVs.\n\n1.A.Mary Imelda Jayaseeli\n2.Minor X.Merlyn Regella\n3.Minor X.Medlyn Marisha\n4.K.S.Alphonse\n5.Valarmathi\n6.V.Tamilvanan\n(Minor Respondents 2&amp;3 are through\ntheir Mother &amp; natural Guardian\nA.Mary Imelda Jeyaseeli,the first\nrespondent herein)\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against\nthe Decree and Judgment dated 21.06.2007, passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.2003 of 2005,\non the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Additional District Court,\nFTC-II)Madurai.\n\n!For Appellant\t    \t... Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai\n\n^For Respondents\t... M.Senthilkumar for R1 to R5\n\t\t\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated<br \/>\n21.06.2007, passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.2033 of 2005, by the Motor Accidents Claims<br \/>\nTribunal -cum- Additional District Court, Fast Track Court-II, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is relating to the<br \/>\nquantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 21.06.2007,<br \/>\nto the tune of Rs.13,92,320\/-(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Three<br \/>\nHundred and Twenty only) on the following sub-heads:\n<\/p>\n<pre>\t(i) For Loss of Income\t   \t   - Rs.13,04,320.00\n\t(ii)For Loss of Consortium\n\t\t\tfor P.1\t\t   - Rs.   15,000.00\t\n\t(iii)For Loss of Love and\n\t\taffection for P2 &amp; P3      - Rs.  20,000.00\n\t(iv)\tFor Loss of Love and\n\t\taffection for P.1          - Rs.  15,000.00\n\t(v)\tfor Loss of Love and\n\t\taffection for P4 &amp; P5      - Rs.  10,000.00\n\t(vi)For Loss of Estate\t           - Rs.  25,000.00\n\t(vii)For Funeral Expenses          - Rs.   3,000.00\n\t\t\t\t\t\t--------------\n\t\t\t \t      Total- Rs.13,92,320.00\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t   \t     --------------\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t3.The challenge in this appeal is relating to the quantum of compensation<br \/>\nawarded by the Tribunal on the main ground that the Tribunal has chosen wrongly<br \/>\nthe multiplier 16, even though the deceased was 40 years old;  the monthly<br \/>\nincome of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.10,190\/- is<br \/>\nalso not correct.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded &#8216;just<br \/>\ncompensation&#8217;?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.The learned counsel for the Insurance Company drawing the attention of<br \/>\nthis Court to the salary particulars of the deceased, would develop his<br \/>\narguments  that the Tribunal had not excluded certain items from the purview of<br \/>\ncalculation and according to him, a sum of Rs.440\/-p.m awarded towards Personal<br \/>\nDevelopment Allowance, should have been  excluded from assessing the<br \/>\ncompensation as such amount was only for the purpose of enabling the deceased to<br \/>\nimprove himself for his consequential increased efficiency at work.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.Whereas the learned counsel for the claimants  claimants placing<br \/>\nreliance on the evidence adduced  relating to future prospects of the deceased,<br \/>\nwould advance his argument that the Tribunal had not considered the future<br \/>\nprospects of the deceased and the compensation  should be much more than what<br \/>\nwas awarded by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. In this factual matrix, it is just and necessary to analyse the  salary<br \/>\ncertificate.  The learned counsel on both sides  relied on the copy of the<br \/>\nsalary certificate  and there is no dispute regarding that.  As such I would<br \/>\nlike to extract the relevant portion of the Salary Certificate so produced by<br \/>\nthem as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBasic Salary\t\t\tRs.3,825\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tDearness Allowance\t\tRs.1,650\/-\n<\/p>\n<pre>\tHouse Rent Allowance   \t\tRs.2,160\/-\n\tSpecial Allowance\t\tRs.  635\/-\n\tEducation Assistance\t\tRs.  500\/-\n\tConveyance Assistance  \t\tRs.  880\/-\n\tWashing Allowance\t\tRs.  100\/-\n\tPersonal Development\n\t\tAllowance\t\tRs.  440\/-\n\t\n\tMedical Allowance      \t\tRs.4,924\/-\n\tLeave Travel\n\tConcession\t\t\tRs.5,700\/-\n\t\t\t\t\t----------\n\t\t\t\tTotal   Rs.10,190\/-\n\t\t\t\t\t----------\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t9. From the above sub-heads, it is clear that a sum of Rs.880\/- p.m was<br \/>\ngiven by the employer towards conveyance assistance and a sum of Rs.100\/- was<br \/>\ngiven towards washing allowance. Obviously, the amounts given under the<br \/>\naforesaid sub-heads never can be  taken as income of the deceased and that<br \/>\nshould be deleted.   Relating to other sub-heads, such as, House Rent Allowance,<br \/>\nSpecial Allowance, Educational Assistance, I am of the considered opinion that<br \/>\nthose are all should be treated  as income and there could be no second thought<br \/>\nover it.  Regarding the medical allowance and Leave Travel Concession, those<br \/>\namounts were paid only annually and that also should be taken while assessing<br \/>\nthe annual income of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that<br \/>\nPersonal Development Allowance  of Rs.440\/- should not be treated as his income<br \/>\nis neither here nor there.  Whatever be the sub-head under which such allowance<br \/>\nwas paid, it was his income only which he was getting along with his pay packet<br \/>\nand virtually while deducting 1\/3rd of the income towards deceased&#8217;s personal<br \/>\nexpenses had he been alive automatically that some would get merged into it.  It<br \/>\nwould be  unjust if separately a sum of Rs.440\/- is  excluded and once again<br \/>\n1\/3rd amount also is deducted from the  remaining amount.  As such, the  sum of<br \/>\nRs.440\/- cannot be excluded from computing the monthly income of the deceased.<br \/>\nThe calculation of the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,21,144\/-<br \/>\n(Rupees One Lakh Twenty One Thousand One Hundred and Forty Four only)<br \/>\n[Rs.1,10,520\/- (Rs.9,210X12) + Rs.4,924\/- (Medical Allowance) + Rs.5,700\/-<br \/>\n(Leave Travel Concession)] and after deducting 1\/3rd amount towards the<br \/>\ndeceased&#8217;s expenditure which he would have incurred for maintaining himself had<br \/>\nhe been alive, the annual dependency comes to Rs.80,763\/- (Rupees Eighty<br \/>\nThousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Three only).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that<br \/>\nmultiplier 16 is on the higher side.  At this juncture, my mind is redolent with<br \/>\nthe following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) <a href=\"\/doc\/1554972\/\">U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and<br \/>\nothers<\/a> reported in (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 362.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) <a href=\"\/doc\/1903507\/\">The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd, v. K.I.Bindu and others<\/a> reported in<br \/>\n2005 (2) TNMAC (SC) 350.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) <a href=\"\/doc\/1964452\/\">Hafizun Begum v. Md.Ikram Heque and others<\/a> reported in 2007 (4) CTC\n<\/p>\n<p>335.<\/p>\n<p>\t12. From the perusal of the aforesaid decisions, it is very clear that<br \/>\nchoosing the multiplier will differ from case to case and there should not be<br \/>\nany hard and fast rule. Only by taking into account the age of the deceased the<br \/>\nmultiplier cannot be chosen.  Various factors  as highlighted supra in those<br \/>\ndecisions should be  considered  and I need not dilate on that.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. Here the wife and the two minor children are the  principal claimants<br \/>\nalong with the parents of the deceased. Necessarily the multiplier 16 has to be<br \/>\nchosen otherwise significant compensation cannot be arrived at,  which would be<br \/>\nof some soccur to the principal claimants.I am fully aware of the fact that<br \/>\nmultiplier found set out in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles<br \/>\nAct, need not be followed in all cases, but in this case multiplier 16, appears<br \/>\nto be correct for the reasons adverted supra.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 14. The learned counsel for the appellant correctly  highlighted  that<br \/>\nafter awarding a sum of Rs.15,000\/- towards loss of consortium for the first<br \/>\npetitioner, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a sum of Rs.15,000\/-<br \/>\ntowards loss of Love and Affection for the same first petitioner and hence it<br \/>\nhas to be deleted.   Towards loss of Love and Affection for the minor children,<br \/>\na sum of Rs.20,000\/- was awarded by the Tribunal which could be confirmed.  A<br \/>\nsum of Rs.10,000\/- awarded by the Tribunal under the sub-head &#8216;loss of love and<br \/>\naffection&#8217; towards the parents, could also be confirmed.  However, the Tribunal<br \/>\nwithout any evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.25,000\/- under the caption, &#8216;loss of<br \/>\nestate&#8217;.  It is not that for the sake of awarding compensation under that<br \/>\ncaption, simply some amount has to be awarded and that has to be deleted in the<br \/>\nabsence of evidence in that regard.  Under the sub-head &#8216;funeral expenses&#8217; a sum<br \/>\nof Rs.3,000\/- was awarded which warrants no interference.  Accordingly, the<br \/>\nfollowing formula emerges:<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n\n\t(i) For Loss of Income\t\n\t\t(Rs.80,763\/-x16)\t   -Rs. 12,92,208.00\t\n\t(ii)For Loss of Consortium\n\t\t\tfor P.1\t\t   - Rs.   15,000.00\t\n\t(iii)For Loss of Love and\n\t\taffection for P2 &amp; P3\t   - Rs.   20,000.00\n\t(iv)\tFor Loss of Love and\n\t\taffection for P4 &amp; P5      - Rs.   10,000.00\n\t(vi)For Funeral Expenses \t   - Rs.    3,000.00\n\t\t\t\t\t   --------------\n\t\t\t \t      Total-Rs.13,40,208.00\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t   \t   --------------\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t15.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the<br \/>\ntotal compensation is reduced from Rs.13,92,320\/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Ninety<br \/>\nTwo Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty only) to Rs.13,40,208\/- (Rupees Thirteen<br \/>\nLakhs Forty Thousand Two Hundred and Eight only) and the rate of interest at the<br \/>\nrate of 7.5% arrived at by the Tribunal is confirmed.  The rest of the award of<br \/>\nthe Tribunal shall hold good.  Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is<br \/>\nclosed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb\/gsr<\/p>\n<p>TO<\/p>\n<p>The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal<br \/>\n(Additional District Court)<br \/>\nFTC-II,<br \/>\nMadurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Branch Manager vs A.Mary Imelda Jayaseeli on 18 March, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18\/03\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD)No.428 of 2008 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2008 The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd, 202,204, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Pondicherry-605 001. .. Appellant Vs. [&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-83563","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Branch Manager vs A.Mary Imelda Jayaseeli on 18 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Branch Manager vs A.Mary Imelda Jayaseeli on 18 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-10T03:16:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Branch Manager vs A.Mary Imelda Jayaseeli on 18 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-10T03:16:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1181,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008\",\"name\":\"The Branch Manager vs A.Mary Imelda Jayaseeli on 18 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-10T03:16:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Branch Manager vs A.Mary Imelda Jayaseeli on 18 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"The Branch Manager vs A.Mary Imelda Jayaseeli on 18 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Branch Manager vs A.Mary Imelda Jayaseeli on 18 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-10T03:16:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Branch Manager vs A.Mary Imelda Jayaseeli on 18 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-10T03:16:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008"},"wordCount":1181,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008","name":"The Branch Manager vs A.Mary Imelda Jayaseeli on 18 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-10T03:16:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-a-mary-imelda-jayaseeli-on-18-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Branch Manager vs A.Mary Imelda Jayaseeli on 18 March, 2008"}]},{"@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\/83563","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=83563"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83563\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83563"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83563"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83563"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}