{"id":106159,"date":"2010-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010"},"modified":"2014-06-12T13:50:38","modified_gmt":"2014-06-12T08:20:38","slug":"united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"United India Insurance Company &#8230; vs Pechimuthu on 24 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">United India Insurance Company &#8230; vs Pechimuthu on 24 February, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMACA.No. 472 of 2008()\n\n\n1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. PECHIMUTHU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. JAGADAMBAL, W\/O.PECHIMUTHU, DO.  DO.\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI\n\n Dated :24\/02\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n              A.K.BASHEER &amp; P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.\n                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                          M.A.C.A.No.472 of 2008\n                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                  Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>Barkath Ali, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the third<\/p>\n<p>respondent , Insurance Company, in O.P.(MV)No.206\/2002 of Motor<\/p>\n<p>Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad challenges the quantum of<\/p>\n<p>compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants who are the<\/p>\n<p>parents and dependents of the deceased Senthilkumar for the loss<\/p>\n<p>caused to them on account of the death of Senthilkumar in a motor<\/p>\n<p>accident.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.    The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these :<\/p>\n<p>      Deceased Senthilkumar was aged 23 at the time of accident. He<\/p>\n<p>was unmarried and used to earn Rs. 3,000\/- per month as an<\/p>\n<p>autorickshaw driver, according to the claimants. On June 30, 2001 the<\/p>\n<p>deceased was riding his moped TVS 50 bearing Reg.No.TA 41.C\/5660<\/p>\n<p>along the Para-Pallathery road.               At that time, a lorry bearing<\/p>\n<p>Reg.No.TN-28\/1499 came at a high speed and dashed against the<\/p>\n<p>MACA.No.472\/08                Page numbers<\/p>\n<p>moped of the deceased. Senthilkumar sustained serious injuries and<\/p>\n<p>died on the spot. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due<\/p>\n<p>to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by second<\/p>\n<p>respondent. The first respondent as the owner, second respondent as<\/p>\n<p>the driver and the third respondent as the insurer of the offending lorry<\/p>\n<p>are liable to pay compensation to the claimants who are the parents and<\/p>\n<p>dependents of the deceased. Claimants claimed a compensation of<\/p>\n<p>Rs.5,76,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.     Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the<\/p>\n<p>offending lorry remained absent and were set ex parte before the<\/p>\n<p>Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle<\/p>\n<p>filed a written statement admitting the policy.<\/p>\n<p>      4.     PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were<\/p>\n<p>marked for the claimants. No evidence was adduced by the contesting<\/p>\n<p>third respondent.     On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal<\/p>\n<p>awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,15,000\/-. The Insurance Company<\/p>\n<p>has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation<\/p>\n<p>awarded by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>MACA.No.472\/08                Page numbers<\/p>\n<p>      5.    The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal<\/p>\n<p>that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the<\/p>\n<p>offending lorry by second respondent is not challenged in this appeal.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, the only question for consideration is whether the<\/p>\n<p>compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.<\/p>\n<p>      6.    Heard Sri.Mathews Jacob, the learned senior counesl for<\/p>\n<p>the appellant and Sri.V.Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel for<\/p>\n<p>respondents 1 and 2, the claimants.\n<\/p>\n<p>      7.    Sri.Mathews Jacob, the learned senior counsel appearing<\/p>\n<p>for the appellant Insurance Company argued that in assessing the loss<\/p>\n<p>of dependency, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 17 which is not<\/p>\n<p>correct, that as the claimants are aged 57 and 49 at the time of the<\/p>\n<p>accident, the proper multiplier should have been 11. There is force in<\/p>\n<p>the above contention. The claimants contended that the deceased as an<\/p>\n<p>auto driver used to earn Rs.3000\/- per month. But in the claim petition,<\/p>\n<p>the avocation of the deceased is shown as vegetable vendor. Taking<\/p>\n<p>into consideration of the above fact, the Tribunal took his monthly<\/p>\n<p>income as Rs. 2,000\/-. As the deceased was aged 23, the Tribunal took<\/p>\n<p>MACA.No.472\/08                 Page numbers<\/p>\n<p>a multiplier of 17 and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,06,000\/- for<\/p>\n<p>loss of dependency.\n<\/p>\n<p>      8.   But the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of<\/p>\n<p>the deceased or that of the claimants whichever is higher as held by the<\/p>\n<p>Apex Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1332665\/\">New Indian Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Charlie<\/a> ( 2005(3)<\/p>\n<p>KLT 227 Supreme Court). In the present case, the parents of the<\/p>\n<p>deceased are the claimants. They are aged 57 and 49 years at the time<\/p>\n<p>of accident. The multiplier shown in Second Schedule to the Motor<\/p>\n<p>Vehicles Act for the age group of 55 to 60 is 8 and that of 45 to 50 is<\/p>\n<p>13.  As the deceased was their only son and as second claimant,<\/p>\n<p>mother, is aged only 49, we feel that a multiplier of 13 would be<\/p>\n<p>reasonable in this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>      9.   There is another aspect. The Tribunal assessed the monthly<\/p>\n<p>income of the deceased as Rs. 2000\/- only. PW2 has supported the<\/p>\n<p>version of PW1 that the deceased was an auto driver which appears to<\/p>\n<p>be true. That being so, the monthly income of the deceased can be<\/p>\n<p>reasonably fixed at Rs. 3,000\/-. Out of this 50% has to be deducted<\/p>\n<p>towards personal expenses as the deceased is a bachelor as held by the<\/p>\n<p>MACA.No.472\/08                  Page numbers<\/p>\n<p>Apex Court in Sarala Varma V.Delhi Transport Corporation and<\/p>\n<p>another ( 2009(6)SCC 121). Thus his monthly contribution to the<\/p>\n<p>claimants can be taken as Rs. 1500\/-. Thus calculated, the claimants<\/p>\n<p>are entitled to Rs. 2,34,000\/- for loss of dependency ( 1500 x 12 x 13).<\/p>\n<p>      10.    The counsel appearing for claimants pointed out that the<\/p>\n<p>Tribunal awarded only Rs. 9,500\/- for loss of love and affection etc. as<\/p>\n<p>provided under the Second Schedule to the Act.           But the Second<\/p>\n<p>Schedule is applicable only if the compensation is claimed under<\/p>\n<p>Section 163A.        But in this case, the claimants have claimed<\/p>\n<p>compensation under Section 166 of the Act.           That being so, the<\/p>\n<p>claimants are entitled to compensation for loss of love and affection,<\/p>\n<p>loss to the estate, for the pain and suffering endured by the deceased ,<\/p>\n<p>hospital expenses, funeral expenses etc.<\/p>\n<p>      11.    Therefore, in the present case, taking into consideration the<\/p>\n<p>fact that the deceased is the only son of claimants, a compensation of<\/p>\n<p>Rs. 20,000\/- for loss of love and affection would be reasonable. For<\/p>\n<p>the pain and suffering endured by the deceased, we feel that a<\/p>\n<p>compensation of Rs. 10,000\/- would be adequate. For loss to the<\/p>\n<p>MACA.No.472\/08                   Page numbers<\/p>\n<p>estate, in our view a compensation of Rs. 10,000\/- would be just and<\/p>\n<p>proper. Towards Funeral expenses and expenses in the hospital, a<\/p>\n<p>compensation of Rs. 5000\/- would be adequate.<\/p>\n<p>      12.   Thus the claimants are found entitled to a compensation of<\/p>\n<p>Rs. 2,79,000\/-. The impugned award of the Tribunal is modified to that<\/p>\n<p>effect. They are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from<\/p>\n<p>the date of petition till realisation and cost. The appellant shall deposit<\/p>\n<p>the amount before the Tribunal within one month from this date. As<\/p>\n<p>the claimants are aged persons, the entire compensation awarded shall<\/p>\n<p>be disbursed to them.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The Appeal is disposed of as found above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                            A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>                                          P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>sv.\n<\/p>\n<pre>MACA.No.472\/08    Page numbers\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court United India Insurance Company &#8230; vs Pechimuthu on 24 February, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MACA.No. 472 of 2008() 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. PECHIMUTHU, &#8230; Respondent 2. JAGADAMBAL, W\/O.PECHIMUTHU, DO. DO. For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) The Hon&#8217;ble [&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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-106159","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>United India Insurance Company ... vs Pechimuthu on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"United India Insurance Company ... vs Pechimuthu on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-12T08:20:38+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"United India Insurance Company &#8230; vs Pechimuthu on 24 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-12T08:20:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1045,\"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\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010\",\"name\":\"United India Insurance Company ... vs Pechimuthu on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-12T08:20:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"United India Insurance Company &#8230; vs Pechimuthu on 24 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"United India Insurance Company ... vs Pechimuthu on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"United India Insurance Company ... vs Pechimuthu on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-12T08:20:38+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"United India Insurance Company &#8230; vs Pechimuthu on 24 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-12T08:20:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010"},"wordCount":1045,"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\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010","name":"United India Insurance Company ... vs Pechimuthu on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-12T08:20:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-pechimuthu-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"United India Insurance Company &#8230; vs Pechimuthu on 24 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/106159","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=106159"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106159\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106159"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106159"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106159"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}