{"id":108744,"date":"2011-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011"},"modified":"2019-01-02T17:06:31","modified_gmt":"2019-01-02T11:36:31","slug":"oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Oriental vs Kinjalben on 6 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Oriental vs Kinjalben on 6 April, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/135220\/2009\t 9\/ 9\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 1352 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 4056 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nORIENTAL\nINSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nKINJALBEN\nMAGANBHAI TARAR MINOR &amp; 4 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nSHALIN N MEHTA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Defendant(s) : 1 -\n5. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 08\/04\/2009 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tlearned Advocate Mr. Shalin N. Mehta for appellant insurance<br \/>\n\tcompany.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tthis appeal, appellant has challenged award made by claims tribunal,<br \/>\n\tSabarkantha at Himatnagar in claim petition no. 348\/02 Exh.75 dated<br \/>\n\t10th December, 2008 wherein claims tribunal has awarded<br \/>\n\tRs.4,07,000.00 with 7.5 per cent interest in favour of respondents<br \/>\n\tclaimants.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tAdvocate Mr. Shalin N. Mehta for appellant raised sole contention<br \/>\n\tbefore this court the claims tribunal has committed gross error in<br \/>\n\tinterpreting terms and conditions of the policy of insurance<br \/>\n\tproduced on record at Exh.54. He submitted that the owner has paid<br \/>\n\tRs.317.00 on count for loading for trailer and Rs.15\/- were paid as<br \/>\n\tadditional premium for additional liability for paid driver\/workman<br \/>\n\tno.1. Therefore, he submitted that the amount of Rs.15\/- paid would<br \/>\n\tapply to only one person, either paid driver or workman no.1 but not<br \/>\n\tto both. He submitted that the claims tribunal has committed gross<br \/>\n\terror in not appreciating this condition properly. He submitted that<br \/>\n\tthe claims tribunal has committed gross error in coming to the<br \/>\n\tconclusion that the insurance policy covers extra liability of one<br \/>\n\tworkman or labour excluding driver and, therefore, matter would<br \/>\n\trequire interference of this court. Except these submissions, no<br \/>\n\tother submission is made by learned advocate Mr.Mehta before this<br \/>\n\tCourt and no decision is cited by learned Advocate Mr. Mehta in<br \/>\n\tsupport of the submissions  recorded herein above.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave considered submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Mehta<br \/>\n\tbefore this Court. I have also perused impugned award made by claims<br \/>\n\ttribunal. Relevant para 13 of impugned award is reproduced as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> In<br \/>\n\treply to this submission, LA Mr.VM Desai on behalf of opponent NO.3<br \/>\n\thas argued that there is a breach of condition of insurance policy,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation<br \/>\n\tto the petitioners for accidental death of deceased Maganbhai.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\tdo agree with the submission made by LA Shri Sadhu on behalf of<br \/>\n\tpetitionres. Considering the versions made in FIR as well as the<br \/>\n\tfacts narrated in panchanama of place of occurrence, it can be<br \/>\n\tstrongly presumed that the tractor was used by the owner for<br \/>\n\tagricultural purposes. Considering the facts narrated in panchanama<br \/>\n\tof place of occurrence, trolley was also lying on the place of<br \/>\n\toccurrence. As per the say of the complainant, the deceased was<br \/>\n\tsitting with him on tractor and due to loss of control on steering<br \/>\n\tof tractor by driver, the tractor turned turtle and deceased was<br \/>\n\tseriously injured in this accident. The policy of involved tractor<br \/>\n\tis produced at Exh.54 in which it is specifically narrated that the<br \/>\n\towner had paid Rs.317 on count of loading for trailer. It transpires<br \/>\n\tthat the owner was using trolley with tractor for agricultural<br \/>\n\tpurposes. Moreover, the owner had paid Rs.15\/- additional premium<br \/>\n\tfor additional liability for paid driver\/workman no.1. Ofcourse the<br \/>\n\tLA Mr. Doshi hs argued that it is a premium for only driver but if<br \/>\n\tpremium of driver need not be narrated as driver&#8217;s\/workman NO.1<br \/>\n\ttherefore, it can be strongly presumed that this insurance policy<br \/>\n\tcovers extra liability for one workman or labour excluding driver.<br \/>\n\tConsidering all the facts and non examination of witness from<br \/>\n\tinsurance company to disprove the facts of additional liability of<br \/>\n\tone workman, insurance company is liable to pay compensation to<br \/>\n\tpetitioners for accidental death of deceased Maganbhai. In this<br \/>\n\tregard the rulings cited by LA Shri Sadhu which are stated in<br \/>\n\tearlier para are supporting the case of the petitioners Of course,<br \/>\n\tthe lA Shri Sadhu has argued in alternate that as a third party<br \/>\n\talso, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners for accidental death of deceased but as per earlier<br \/>\n\tdiscussion, this is not a case to consider deceased as third party<br \/>\n\ttherefore, question does not arise to give direction to the<br \/>\n\tinsurance company to pay  compensation to the petitioners at this<br \/>\n\tjuncture and to recover the same thereafter from the owner of the<br \/>\n\tvehicle. In all, I am of the opinion that insurance company is<br \/>\n\tliable to pay compensation to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>Considering<br \/>\n\treasoning given by claims tribunal in para 13 of award as quoted<br \/>\n\tabove, relevant question is that when the contention has been raised<br \/>\n\tby insurance company before claims tribunal in respect of the policy<br \/>\n\tof insurance at Exh.54 that Rs.15\/- were paid as additional premium<br \/>\n\twhich would cover liability of driver and not workman or only one<br \/>\n\tperson and not two persons, then, it is the duty of insurance<br \/>\n\tcompany to prove the same contention by leading proper evidence<br \/>\n\totherwise, it cannot be said that the contention raised by insurance<br \/>\n\tcompany is proved. Therefore, considering all the facts and non<br \/>\n\texamination of witness from insurance company to disprove the facts<br \/>\n\tof additional liability of one workman, according to my opinion,<br \/>\n\tclaims tribunal has rightly observed that insurance company is<br \/>\n\tliable to pay compensation to petitioners for accidental death of<br \/>\n\tdeceased Maganbhai.  Accoridng to my opinion,l such presumption<br \/>\n\traised by claims tribunal cannot be considered to be erroneous in<br \/>\n\tview of non examination of witness from insurance company to<br \/>\n\tdisprove facts of additional liability. It is well established<br \/>\n\tprinciple that person who raise a particular contention must prove<br \/>\n\tsuch particular contention. When insurance company has raised<br \/>\n\tspecific contention that an amount of Rs.15\/&#8211; paid by insured would<br \/>\n\tcover paid driver and not workman or workman as per terms and<br \/>\n\tconditions of policy, then, it is the duty of insurance company to<br \/>\n\tprove such condition and such condition must have to be explained by<br \/>\n\tinsurance company so claimants may get an opportunity to cross<br \/>\n\texamine officer of insurance company in that regard. In this case,<br \/>\n\tcontention raised by insurance company on the basis of condition of<br \/>\n\tinsurance policy has not been proved by insurance company by leading<br \/>\n\tproper evidence and, therefore, claims tribunal has rightly come to<br \/>\n\tthe conclusion that the additional premium covers risk of workman.<br \/>\n\tFor that, according to my opinion, claims tribunal has not committed<br \/>\n\tany error in coming to such conclusion. In National Ins. Co. Ltd.<br \/>\n\tversus Lakhuben Punabhai Vaghari &amp; Ors., reported in 2006(2) GLH<br \/>\n\t468, Division Bench of this Court examined this aspect as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 6.\tIt<br \/>\n\tis now settled by a catena of decisions of<br \/>\n\tthe Supreme Court that all defences are to<br \/>\n\tbe proved by the insurer like the appellant. In the face of this<br \/>\n\tspecific averment in the claim petitions<br \/>\n\tthat the persons were travelling alongwith their goods, the onus to<br \/>\n\tdisprove this averment rests upon the appellant Insurance Co. Had<br \/>\n\tthe appellant   Insurance Company discharged this onus, it would<br \/>\n\thave gone a long way in proving whether,<br \/>\n\tor not, the deceased persons were gratuitous passengers.<br \/>\n\tUnfortunately, it has failed to do so and<br \/>\n\thas not even brought the driver of the offending truck into the<br \/>\n\twitness box. The burden to prove the breach<br \/>\n\tof a term of contract rests squarely on the party which complains of<br \/>\n\tsuch breach. The test which can be applied in such a situation would<br \/>\n\tbe that which party  would fail if no evidence is led or the onus is<br \/>\n\tnot discharged.   In the present<br \/>\n\tcase, the answer would be the appellant-Insurance Company. In this<br \/>\n\tbehalf, reference<br \/>\n\tcan be made to  1985 ACJ 397 <a href=\"\/doc\/1270363\/\">(Narcinva V. Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio<br \/>\n\tDoe Martins) and<\/a>  2004 ACJ 1 <a href=\"\/doc\/1827019\/\">(National<br \/>\n\tInsurance Co.Ltd. v. Swaran Singh). In National<br \/>\n\tInsurance Co.Ltd.<\/a> v. Swaran Singh (Supra) the Supreme Court has<br \/>\n\tobserved as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 62.<br \/>\nthe proposition of law is no longer res<br \/>\nintegra that the person who alleges breach<br \/>\nmust prove the same. The insurance company<br \/>\nis, thus, required to establish the said breach by cogent<br \/>\nevidence. In the event the insurance company<br \/>\nfails to prove that there has been breach of conditions<br \/>\n of policy on the part of the insured, the insurance<br \/>\ncompany cannot be absolved of its<br \/>\nliability. (See Sohan Lal Passi, 1996 ACJ<br \/>\n1044 (SC).\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t 102<\/span><\/p>\n<p>((i)**********<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii)<br \/>\n**************<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii)**************<\/p>\n<p>(iv)The<br \/>\nInsurance companies are, however, with a<br \/>\nview to avoid their liability must not only<br \/>\nestablish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but<br \/>\nmust also establish &#8216;breach&#8217; on the part of<br \/>\nthe owner of the vehicle, the burden of proof wherefor would be on<br \/>\nthem.\n<\/p>\n<p>(v)The<br \/>\ncourt cannot lay down any criteria as to<br \/>\nhow said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would<br \/>\ndepend upon the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\neach case.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tApplying<br \/>\n\tthe ratio of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, as referred to<br \/>\n\tabove, it is evident that the appellant, in the present case has<br \/>\n\tfailed to lead any evidence in order to<br \/>\n\tprove that the deceased persons were gratuitous passengers who were<br \/>\n\ttravelling in an unauthorised manner in the truck and  without any<br \/>\n\tgoods. The specific averment in the claim petition that the deceased<br \/>\n\tpersons were travelling  in the truck<br \/>\n\talongwith their goods has not been dislodged during the entire<br \/>\n\tproceedings before the M.A.C.Tribunal and in the absence of any<br \/>\n\tevidence or material<br \/>\n\ton record to the contrary, it has rightly been relied upon by the<br \/>\n\tM.A.C.Tribunal to come to the conclusion<br \/>\n\tthat the deceased persons were travelling<br \/>\n\tin the truck alongwith their goods and, as such they were not<br \/>\n\tgratuitous passengers. Having failed to discharge the burden of<br \/>\n\tproof in support of this contention, it is not open to the appellant<br \/>\n\tat this stage to try and bring about a re-appraisal of the evidence<br \/>\n\ton facts. There is no reason for this Court to go into the factual<br \/>\n\taspect of the matter or enter into a re-appraisal of evidence since<br \/>\n\tthe impugned judgment and award does not<br \/>\n\tsuffer from any illegality or perversity.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of the observations as aforesaid made by Division Bench of this<br \/>\n\tCourt that burden is upon the insurance company to prove facts if<br \/>\n\tcontention is raised by insurance company before claims tribunal, by<br \/>\n\tleading proper evidence in respect of such contention. In this case,<br \/>\n\tinsurance company has not led any evidence to explain terms and<br \/>\n\tconditions of policy of insurance Exh.54 and, therefore, claims<br \/>\n\ttribunal has rightly arrived at conclusion as aforesaid that<br \/>\n\tadditional premium covers risk of deceased and according to my<br \/>\n\topinion, no error has been committed by claims tribunal in coming to<br \/>\n\tsuch conclusion and, therefore, matter does not call for any<br \/>\n\tinterference of this court. Therefore, there is no substance in this<br \/>\n\tappeal and same is required tobe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tresult, this appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of the orders passed by this court in first appeal, no order is<br \/>\n\trequired to be passed in civil application for stay, therefore,<br \/>\n\tcivil application for stay is disposed of accordingly. Amount, if<br \/>\n\tany, deposited by appellant in registry of this court be transmitted<br \/>\n\tto claims tribunal immediately.\n<\/p>\n<p>(H.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>Rathod,J.)<\/p>\n<p>Vyas<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Oriental vs Kinjalben on 6 April, 2011 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/135220\/2009 9\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1352 of 2009 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4056 of 2009 ========================================================= ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus KINJALBEN MAGANBHAI TARAR [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-108744","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Oriental vs Kinjalben on 6 April, 2011 - 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\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Oriental vs Kinjalben on 6 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-02T11:36:31+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\\\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Oriental vs Kinjalben on 6 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-02T11:36:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1807,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Oriental vs Kinjalben on 6 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-02T11:36:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Oriental vs Kinjalben on 6 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Oriental vs Kinjalben on 6 April, 2011 - 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\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Oriental vs Kinjalben on 6 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-02T11:36:31+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\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Oriental vs Kinjalben on 6 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-02T11:36:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011"},"wordCount":1807,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011","name":"Oriental vs Kinjalben on 6 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-02T11:36:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/oriental-vs-kinjalben-on-6-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Oriental vs Kinjalben on 6 April, 2011"}]},{"@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\/108744","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=108744"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108744\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108744"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108744"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108744"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}