{"id":105232,"date":"2008-05-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008"},"modified":"2018-05-28T14:10:26","modified_gmt":"2018-05-28T08:40:26","slug":"ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. United India Ins.Co. Ltd vs K.C.Augustine on 30 May, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. United India Ins.Co. Ltd vs K.C.Augustine on 30 May, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 381 of 1993(D)\n\n\n\n1. M\/S. UNITED INDIA INS.CO. LTD.\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. K.C.AUGUSTINE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SIBY MATHEW\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.N.D.GANGADHARAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n\n Dated :30\/05\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                            P.R.RAMAN &\n                   T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ.\n              -------------------------------\n                        A.S.NO.381 OF 1993\n             --------------------------------\n                 Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Raman, J.\n<\/p>\n
      First defendant in O.S.No.313\/89 is the appellant herein.<\/p>\n
Plaintiff instituted the abovesaid suit for realisation of money. As per<\/p>\n
the plaint averment, plaintiff was the owner of a deep see fishing vessel<\/p>\n
by name “Simla” registered in the Merchantile Marine Department,<\/p>\n
Kochi. Plaintiff availed a loan for the construction of the said vessel<\/p>\n
from the 2nd defendant and also by making private borrowings. The<\/p>\n
said vessel was subsequently insured with the lst defendant Insurance<\/p>\n
Company, which is the appellant herein. The total value of the policy<\/p>\n
taken is for a sum of Rs.40,00,000\/-. Both the vessel and its accessories<\/p>\n
were valued by the Marine Surveyors for the purpose of insuring the<\/p>\n
vessel. Valuation therefore includes the value of the net also. It is<\/p>\n
stated that    on 23\/6\/1988 the vessel met with an accident while<\/p>\n
engaging in fishing and the net attached to the vessel was entangled in<\/p>\n
some underwater obstruction. In spite of earnest efforts made, the net<\/p>\n
could not be released. So, the net was pulled for saving the entire net.<\/p>\n
                                      -2-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.381\/1993<\/p>\n
As a result, damage was caused to the net. Claim for Rs.3,75,000\/- was<\/p>\n
lodged to the Insurance Company. M\/s. Seascan Services, Kerala assessed<\/p>\n
the loss sustained to the plaintiff and filed a survey report. But the lst<\/p>\n
defendant did not settle the claim in spite of repeated demands. Plaintiff<\/p>\n
understood that the rejection of the claim was based on the technical<\/p>\n
ground. Hence the suit. The suit itself was filed as an indigent person for<\/p>\n
realisation of an amount of Rs.4,59,375\/- and its future interest and costs.<\/p>\n
       2. The lst defendant in the written statement contended that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff had insured the vessel with the 2nd respondent herein covering<\/p>\n
total loss and partial loss as per the provisions of Institute Fishing Vessel<\/p>\n
Clause. The policy covers the damage sustained to the plaintiff due to<\/p>\n
riot, strike, personal accidents to the crews etc. As per the Institute<\/p>\n
Fishing Vessel Clause, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any amount as<\/p>\n
damages for the partial loss of the net, since the loss was occurred while<\/p>\n
the vessel was engaged in fishing. Hence, the claim is not admissible in<\/p>\n
law. The quantum is also disputed. The net which used by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
was old. No periodical maintenance was made to the net.             The 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant-Bank filed a written statement contending that in case the suit is<\/p>\n
decreed against the lst defendant, the 2nd defendant may be allowed to<\/p>\n
                                     -3-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.381\/1993<\/p>\n
realise the above amount to settle the loan account of the plaintiff. The<\/p>\n
2nd defendant also contended that they are unnecessary parties. In the<\/p>\n
replication the plaintiff contended that the 2nd defendant is estopped from<\/p>\n
seeking any relief. According to him, acceptance of premium covering<\/p>\n
the value of net creates a concluded contract between the plaintiff and the<\/p>\n
lst defendant.\n<\/p>\n
       3. The court below considered the question as to whether the 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant is a necessary party to the suit and found that the 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant, from whom the loan was taken by the plaintiff,          paid the<\/p>\n
premium on behalf of the plaintiff, they are the necessary party.<\/p>\n
       4. The yet another issue raised in the suit is whether the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
entitled to claim compensation for the damages caused to the net. In this<\/p>\n
regard the evidence consists of oral testimony of PW-1 on the side of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff and DWs.1 to 3 on the side of the defendants besides production<\/p>\n
of documents Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B10.\n<\/p>\n
       5. The court below found after analysing the evidence in this case<\/p>\n
that for the purpose of payment of premium, the vessel was valued<\/p>\n
including the net and therefore it held that any claim for damages to the<\/p>\n
net is sustainable. It also found that the cost of the lost net of 1,597.01<\/p>\n
                                      -4-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.381\/1993<\/p>\n
Kgs. comes to Rs.2,53,356.11 paise. Even though grounds are urged in<\/p>\n
the appeal memorandum disputing the correctness of the qualification<\/p>\n
made by the court below, no materials are placed or arguments advanced<\/p>\n
to convince that the qualification was in any way perverse. At any rate,<\/p>\n
after analysing the evidence in this case, we find that the court below has<\/p>\n
rightly assessed the cost of the net damaged. The court below while doing<\/p>\n
so, has analysed the evidence on record including the oral testimony of<\/p>\n
DW-3 and Ext.B10. We do not find any reason to interfere with the<\/p>\n
finding.\n<\/p>\n
      6. It is the definite case of the appellant that as per Institute Fishing<\/p>\n
Vessel Clause, the plaintiff has no right to claim damages for the loss of<\/p>\n
fishing net, when the vessel was actually engaged in fishing. Reference is<\/p>\n
made to Clause 12 of the Institute Fishing Vessel Clause, which reads as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “No claim to attach hereto for loss of or damage to<\/p>\n
        fishing gear during and as a result of fishing<\/p>\n
        operations”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      7. As per Clause 2 of the General Warranties Clause, loss or damage<\/p>\n
to equipment of accessories payable only if a claim for loss or damage to<\/p>\n
hull is admitted under the policy.        Therefore, it was contended that<\/p>\n
                                     -5-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.381\/1993<\/p>\n
damages if any, caused to the net is not admissible as per the policy. It<\/p>\n
may be true that the entire ship including the net may be valued for the<\/p>\n
purpose of premium. In case any damage is caused to the hull, necessarily<\/p>\n
the entire damages including the damage caused to the net will then be<\/p>\n
payable by the lst defendant. But in the absence of any damages to the hull<\/p>\n
they are not liable to pay any damages caused to the net alone. The<\/p>\n
Surveyor in Ext.B10 has also opined that the plaintiff is not entitled on<\/p>\n
such reasoning for getting any damages. But the plaintiff contended that<\/p>\n
General Warranty Clause as well as the Institute Fishing Vessel Clause<\/p>\n
are not applicable to the facts of this case, as the lst defendant was<\/p>\n
collecting premium separately for the net. It is also contended that the<\/p>\n
General Warranty Clause annexed to the policy is not seen signed either<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff or by the lst defendant. Accepting the said contention the<\/p>\n
court below held that the lst defendant cannot contend that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
has accepted the General Warranty Clause and that there is privity of<\/p>\n
contract between the plaintiff and the lst defendant. On that view, it held<\/p>\n
that the General Warranty Clause is not binding on the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
       8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, after<\/p>\n
referring to the Insurance policy produced in this case, contended that<\/p>\n
                                     -6-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.381\/1993<\/p>\n
even Page No.2 of the policy under the schedule, it is clearly mentioned<\/p>\n
that the fishing vessel “Simla” is insured for a sum of Rs.40,00,000\/-<\/p>\n
against total loss and partial loss as per the Institute Fishing Vessel<\/p>\n
Clause and Pollution Hazard Clause Attached. The Institute Fishing<\/p>\n
Vessel Clause thus forms part of the contract between the parties.  As per<\/p>\n
Clause 12, there is no claim to attach hereto for loss of or damage to<\/p>\n
fishing gear during and as result of fishing operations. The word “Fishing<\/p>\n
Gear” is not defined in Institute Fishing Vessel Clause; but as per the<\/p>\n
Webster’s Dictionary 1988 Edition, the term “Fishing Gear” means, the<\/p>\n
tools, materials etc. needed     and assembled, for a piece of work or<\/p>\n
particular activity. As per the Collins English Dictionary 6th Edition, the<\/p>\n
term “Fishing Gear” is defined as nautical all equipments or appurtenances<\/p>\n
belonging to certain vessel, Sailor.\n<\/p>\n
      9. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the term “Fishing Gear”<\/p>\n
in this context necessarily takes in a net attached to the vessel as it is<\/p>\n
essential for fishing operations. Therefore, the exclusion clause contained<\/p>\n
in Clause 12 of Institute Fishing Vessel Clause as per which there cannot<\/p>\n
be any claim for loss or damages to such apparatus during and as a result<\/p>\n
of fishing operations.    Admittedly, in this case the damage if any,<\/p>\n
                                      -7-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.381\/1993<\/p>\n
sustained to the net was in the course of the fishing operations. Therefore,<\/p>\n
by applying Clause 12 the claim made by the plaintiff for loss sustained to<\/p>\n
the net is not admissible.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Further, as per the General Warranty Clause, loss or damage to<\/p>\n
the equipments or accessories will become payable only if a claim for loss<\/p>\n
or damage to hull is admitted under the policy. True that the court below<\/p>\n
found that the General Warranty Clause is not assigned other apparatus<\/p>\n
and there is no reference to the General Warranty Clause as forming part<\/p>\n
of the policy conditions. There is no oral evidence of DW-2 to that effect.<\/p>\n
In such circumstances, the lst defendant, who placed reliance on the<\/p>\n
clauses contained in the General Warranty Clause, to deny the claim made<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff, has necessarily to prove that the General Warranty Clause<\/p>\n
is also form part of the terms of the contract between the parties. There is<\/p>\n
no acceptable evidence in this regard and as such the finding of the court<\/p>\n
below that the plaintiff’s claim cannot be defeated by virtue of the clauses<\/p>\n
contained in the General Warranty Clause, is sustained. But in view of<\/p>\n
Clause 12 of the Institute Fishing Vessel Clause as referred to above, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is not entitled to claim damages to the net sustained in this case.<\/p>\n
      In the result, the judgment and decree of the court below is set aside<\/p>\n
                                    -8-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.381\/1993<\/p>\n
and the suit stands dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.<\/p>\n
The appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited at the time of<\/p>\n
filing the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
       Appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   P.R.RAMAN,
\n                                                     Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                                         T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
\n                                                        Judge.\n<\/p>\n
kcv.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S. United India Ins.Co. Ltd vs K.C.Augustine on 30 May, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 381 of 1993(D) 1. M\/S. UNITED INDIA INS.CO. LTD. … Petitioner Vs 1. K.C.AUGUSTINE … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.SIBY MATHEW For Respondent :SRI.N.D.GANGADHARAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. United India Ins.Co. Ltd vs K.C.Augustine on 30 May, 2008 - 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\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. United India Ins.Co. Ltd vs K.C.Augustine on 30 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-28T08:40:26+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. United India Ins.Co. Ltd vs K.C.Augustine on 30 May, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-28T08:40:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1645,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. United India Ins.Co. Ltd vs K.C.Augustine on 30 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-28T08:40:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. United India Ins.Co. Ltd vs K.C.Augustine on 30 May, 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":"M\/S. United India Ins.Co. Ltd vs K.C.Augustine on 30 May, 2008 - 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\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. United India Ins.Co. Ltd vs K.C.Augustine on 30 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-28T08:40:26+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. United India Ins.Co. Ltd vs K.C.Augustine on 30 May, 2008","datePublished":"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-28T08:40:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008"},"wordCount":1645,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008","name":"M\/S. United India Ins.Co. Ltd vs K.C.Augustine on 30 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-28T08:40:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-ins-co-ltd-vs-k-c-augustine-on-30-may-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. United India Ins.Co. Ltd vs K.C.Augustine on 30 May, 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\/105232","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=105232"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105232\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}