{"id":85667,"date":"2008-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008"},"modified":"2018-04-12T02:27:29","modified_gmt":"2018-04-11T20:57:29","slug":"padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Padmavathy vs Narasimman on 26 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Padmavathy vs Narasimman on 26 February, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 26\/02\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.866 of 2007\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2007\n\n1.Padmavathy\n2.Subbulakshmi alias Brindha\n3.Saravanan\n4.Gurusamy\n5.Mahalakshmi\t\t\t\t\t\t .. Appellants\n\nVs\n\n1.Narasimman\n2.The Divisional Manager,\n  Divisional Office III,\n  The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,\n  E.P. Building,\n  24.Mill Road\n  Coimbatore.\t\t\t\t    \t\t .. Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the\nJudgement and Decree dated 29.01.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.86 of 2006 by the\nlearned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Chief Judicial Magistrate,\nThoothukudi.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t\t... Mr.U.Minnavadi\n\n^For Respondent No.2\t\t... Mr.AS.Mathiyalagan\n\nFor Respondent No.1\t\t... No appearance\n\t\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis appeal is focussed as against the Judgement and Decree dated<br \/>\n29.01.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.86 of 2006 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims<br \/>\nTribunal-cum-the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the second respondent and notice to R1 is dispensed with as<br \/>\nhe remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The Tribunal vide Judgement dated 29.01.2007 awarded compensation to a<br \/>\ntune of Rs.1,80,500\/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand and five hundred only)<br \/>\nunder the following sub-heads:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor death of the deceased<br \/>\n\t(loss of dependency)\t\t-Rs.1,56,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor funeral expenses\t\t-Rs.   2,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor loss of consortium\t\t-Rs.   5,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor loss of love and<br \/>\n\t\taffection\t\t\t-Rs.  10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<pre>\tFor loss of estate\t   \t-Rs.   2,500\/-\n\tFor transport of dead body\t-Rs.   5,000\/-\t\n\t\t\t\t\t--------------\n\t\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.1,80,500\/-\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t--------------\t\t\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t4. The challenge in this appeal is relating to the inadequacy of<br \/>\ncompensation awarded by the Tribunal.  The grievance of the appellants\/claimants<br \/>\nas found set out in the memorandum of appeal is that despite the fact that the<br \/>\ndeceased died at the age of 48, working as manager in a hotel, earning a sum of<br \/>\nRs.3000\/- (Rupees three thousand only), for which necessary pay certificate also<br \/>\nfiled, which remains unchallenged and unimpugned, the Tribunal fell into error<br \/>\nin simply taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1500\/- (Rupees one<br \/>\nthousand and five hundred only), which by any standard cannot be countenanced as<br \/>\ncorrect or appropriate; under other sub heads also, the Tribunal awarded only<br \/>\nmeagre amounts, which warrants interference of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded &#8216;just<br \/>\ncompensation&#8217;?\n<\/p>\n<p>6. On point:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned counsel for the appellants\/ claimants would convincingly and<br \/>\ncorrectly highlight the fact that before the Tribunal Ex.P9, the pay certificate<br \/>\nwas marked and in order to prove it, the owner of the hotel concerned viz., the<br \/>\nemployer of the deceased also deposed as P.W.2; but ignoring all these clinching<br \/>\nfacts, the Tribunal simply of its own accord without any basis arrived at the<br \/>\nconclusion that the deceased was earning only a sum of Rs.1500\/- (Rupees one<br \/>\nthousand and five hundred only) per month, whereas the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nsecond respondent\/Insurance Company would try to torpedo the arguments of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the appellants\/claimants by pointing out that there was no<br \/>\nclinching evidence to show that the deceased was actually earning a sum of<br \/>\nRs.3000\/- (Rupees three thousand only) and he was also taking free meals under<br \/>\nhis employer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Be that as it may, even assuming that there is no clinching evidence to<br \/>\nthe satisfaction of the respondent\/Insurance Company, yet the following<br \/>\ndecisions of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court as well as this Court would come to the<br \/>\nrescue of the appellants\/ claimants:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) State of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur and others reported in<br \/>\n2004-1-L.W.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) <a href=\"\/doc\/1045216\/\">Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation Limited v. Mayilathal &amp;<br \/>\nOthers<\/a> reported in 2004(1)TN MAC 337.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. It is therefore clear that during the year 2002, the deceased, a<br \/>\nhealthy man of 48 years old, might have certainly worked and earned not less<br \/>\nthan Rs.3000\/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month, at the rate of Rs.100\/-<br \/>\n(Rupees hundred only) per day.  Taking into account the cost of living<br \/>\nprevailing during the year 2003, without earning a sum of Rs.100\/- (Rupees one<br \/>\nhundred only) per day, the deceased could not have maintained his wife, two<br \/>\nchildren and his parents.  Hence, the Tribunal fell into error in choosing the<br \/>\nmonthly income of the deceased in a sum of Rs.1500\/- (Rupees one thousand and<br \/>\nfive hundred only).  I am having no hesitation to hold that the deceased, at the<br \/>\nrelevant time of the accident, was earning a sum of Rs.3000\/- (Rupees three<br \/>\nthousand only) per month and accordingly the calculation has to be computed.  It<br \/>\nis a trite proposition of law that 1\/3 of the income should be deducted towards<br \/>\nthe expenditure which the deceased would have incurred for maintaining himself<br \/>\nhad he been alive irrespective of the fact whether the deceased lead the life of<br \/>\na Bohemian or that of a Spartan.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The learned counsel for the appellants\/ claimants would have no<br \/>\ngrievance relating to the multiplier 13 chosen by the Tribunal.  The deceased at<br \/>\nthe relevant time of his death was 48 years old. Taking a cue from the Second<br \/>\nSchedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier 13 chosen is<br \/>\ncorrect.  I am fully aware of the fact that in all cases the multiplier as found<br \/>\nsuggested in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be<br \/>\ntaken as conclusive.   But in this case, I am of the considered opinion that the<br \/>\nmultiplier 13 is the appropriate one because the widow, the unmarried daughter<br \/>\nand the young son are the claimants along with the parents of the deceased.  As<br \/>\nsuch unless multiplier 13 is chosen significant compensation cannot be computed,<br \/>\nwhich would be of some succour to the claimants.  Hence, the compensation  under<br \/>\nthe head &#8216;loss of income&#8217; shall be re-fixed at Rs.3,12,000\/- [ 3000 X 12 X 13 X<br \/>\n2\/3 =3,12,000\/- ] (Rupees three lakhs and twelve thousand only).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The learned counsel for the appellants\/ claimants would also<br \/>\nconvincingly submit that for loss of consortium only a sum of Rs.5000\/- was<br \/>\nawarded, which in my opinion is meagre and at least a sum of Rs.15,000\/- (Rupees<br \/>\nfifteen thousand only) could be awarded under that caption.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Towards loss of love and affection, the Tribunal awarded totally a sum<br \/>\nof Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten thousand only), even though as many as four other<br \/>\nclaimants are there.  For 2,3-claimants a sum of Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten<br \/>\nthousand only) each could be awarded and relating to the parents a sum of<br \/>\nRs.5000\/- (Rupees five thousand only) each could be awarded.  As such under the<br \/>\ncaption loss of love and affection totally a sum of Rs.30,000\/- (Rupees thirty<br \/>\nthousand only) could be awarded.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Towards transport expenses, a sum of Rs.5000\/- (Rupees five thousand<br \/>\nonly) was awarded, which in my opinion, could be confirmed, as there is no<br \/>\nevidence to prove that over and above much amount, the claimants might have been<br \/>\nincurred expenditure for transporting the dead body from Bavani to the place of<br \/>\nthe deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. Towards funeral expenses, only a sum of Rs.2000\/- (Rupees two thousand<br \/>\nonly) was awarded, which could be enhanced to Rs.5000\/- (Rupees five thousand<br \/>\nonly) as during the year 2002, certainly that much amount would be required for<br \/>\nperforming the funeral ceremonies.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. Towards loss of estate, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,500\/-<br \/>\n(Rupees two thousand and five hundred only), which in my opinion has to be<br \/>\ndeleted as there is no evidence to prove the same.  Accordingly, the<br \/>\ncompensation is modified as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor death of the deceased<br \/>\n\t(loss of dependency)\t\t-Rs.3,12,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor funeral expenses\t\t-Rs.   5,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor loss of consortium\t\t-Rs.  15,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor loss of love and<br \/>\n\t\taffection\t\t-Rs.  30,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor transport of dead body\t-Rs.   5,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br \/>\n\t\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.3,67,000\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and<br \/>\nthe award of the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,80,500\/- (Rupees one<br \/>\nlakh eighty thousand and five hundred only) to Rs.3,67,000\/- (Rupees three lakhs<br \/>\nand sixty seven thousand only), which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5%<br \/>\nas directed by the Tribunal from the date of M.C.O.P. till deposit.<br \/>\nProportionately there will be variation in the allotments in favour of each of<br \/>\nthe claimants depending upon the variation in the total compensation awarded<br \/>\nherein.  No costs.  Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>smn<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum<br \/>\nthe Chief Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nThoothukudi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Padmavathy vs Narasimman on 26 February, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26\/02\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD)No.866 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 1.Padmavathy 2.Subbulakshmi alias Brindha 3.Saravanan 4.Gurusamy 5.Mahalakshmi .. Appellants Vs 1.Narasimman 2.The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office III, The United India Insurance [&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-85667","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>Padmavathy vs Narasimman on 26 February, 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\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Padmavathy vs Narasimman on 26 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-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=\"2008-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-11T20:57:29+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\\\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Padmavathy vs Narasimman on 26 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-11T20:57:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1274,\"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\\\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Padmavathy vs Narasimman on 26 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-11T20:57:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Padmavathy vs Narasimman on 26 February, 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":"Padmavathy vs Narasimman on 26 February, 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\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Padmavathy vs Narasimman on 26 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-11T20:57:29+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\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Padmavathy vs Narasimman on 26 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-11T20:57:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008"},"wordCount":1274,"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\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008","name":"Padmavathy vs Narasimman on 26 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-11T20:57:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-vs-narasimman-on-26-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Padmavathy vs Narasimman on 26 February, 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\/85667","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=85667"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85667\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}