{"id":114073,"date":"2007-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007"},"modified":"2018-09-13T06:13:01","modified_gmt":"2018-09-13T00:43:01","slug":"t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"T. Ramaiya vs National Insurance Co on 29 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">T. Ramaiya vs National Insurance Co on 29 March, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 29\/03\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU\n\nC.R.P. NPD (MD) Nos.807 of 2006\nAND\nC.R.P. NPD (MD) Nos.808 to 817 of 2006\n\nand M.P. (MD) Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 and 1 OF 2006\n\nT. Ramaiya\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVersus\n\nNational Insurance Co.,\n333\/1, Sekkalai Road,\nKariakudi Town,\nSivagangai\nRep. by its Branch Manager \t.. 1st Respondent<\/pre>\n<p>Irulappan\t\t\t.. 2nd Respondent in CRP<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t   (NPD) No.807 of 2006<\/p>\n<p>Malaichamy\t\t\t.. 2nd Respondent in CRP<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t   (NPD) No.808 of 2006<\/p>\n<p>L.Jothi\t\t\t\t.. 2nd Respondent in CRP<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t   (NPD) No.809 of 2006<\/p>\n<p>S.Ponnammal\t\t\t.. 2nd Respondent in CRP<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t   (NPD) No.810 of 2006<\/p>\n<p>M.Chandiran\t\t\t.. 2nd Respondent in CRP<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t   (NPD) No.811 of 2006<\/p>\n<p>R.Lakshmanan\t\t\t.. 2nd Respondent in CRP<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t   (NPD) No.812 of 2006<\/p>\n<p>P.Kalimuthu\t\t\t.. 2nd Respondent in CRP<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t   (NPD) No.813 of 2006<\/p>\n<p>P.Chandiran\t\t \t.. 2nd Respondent in CRP<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t   (NPD) No.814 of 2006<\/p>\n<p>S.Lakshmi  \t\t\t.. 2nd Respondent in CRP<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t   (NPD) No.815 of 2006<\/p>\n<p>M.Padma\t\t\t\t.. 2nd Respondent in CRP<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t   (NPD) No.816 of 2006<\/p>\n<p>P.Valli   \t\t\t.. 2nd Respondent in CRP<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t   (NPD) No.817 of 2006<\/p>\n<p>Prayer<\/p>\n<p>Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set<br \/>\naside the fair order and decreetal order dated 04.02.2005 made in M.C.O.P.<br \/>\nNo.167 to 175, 177 and 183 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims<br \/>\nTribunal (Sub Court), Sivagangai.<\/p>\n<p>!For Petitioner \t&#8230; Mr.R. Vijayakumar<\/p>\n<p>^For 1st Respondent \t&#8230; Mr.N.Murugesan<\/p>\n<p>For 2nd Respondent   \t&#8230; Given up<\/p>\n<p>:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThese 11 revision petitions have been filed challenging the awards<br \/>\nmade by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Sub Court), Sivaganga in<br \/>\nM.C.O.P. Nos.167 to 175 of 2003, 177 and 183 of 2003 in so far as the awards<br \/>\nrelate to the direction contained in clause 5 of the decree that the Insurance<br \/>\nCompany viz., the first respondent herein shall be entitled to recover the award<br \/>\namounts from the petitioner after paying the same in accordance with award to<br \/>\nthe claimants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. The brief facts of the case are follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.<br \/>\nTN-31-N-0289.  On 15.04.2003, the said vehicle involved in an accident in which<br \/>\nadmittedly 30 persons travelled in the said vehicle at the time of accident and<br \/>\nsustained injuries.  Out of the said 30 persons, 18 have come forward with the<br \/>\nclaim petitions in M.C.O.P. Nos.167 to 175 of 2003, 177 and 183 of 2003.<br \/>\nAdmittedly, the vehicle was covered by a insurance issued by the first<br \/>\nrespondent herein covering the relevant period.  On full trial, the Tribunal was<br \/>\npleased to pass awards granting compensation  with interest at 9% p.a. from the<br \/>\ndate of Award as detailed below:\n<\/p>\n<p>M.C.O.P. No.<br \/>\nCompensation<br \/>\n167 of 2003<br \/>\nRs.4000<br \/>\n168 of 2003<br \/>\nRs.4000<br \/>\n169 of 2003<br \/>\nRs.4000<br \/>\n170 of 2003<br \/>\nRs.4000<br \/>\n171 of 2003<br \/>\nRs.4000<br \/>\n172 of 2003<br \/>\nRs.4000<br \/>\n173 of 2003<br \/>\nRs.4000<br \/>\n174 of 2003<br \/>\nRs.4000<br \/>\n175 of 2003<br \/>\nRs.4000<br \/>\n177 of 2003<br \/>\nRs.4000<br \/>\n183 of 2003<br \/>\nRs.4000<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. During the trial a specific plea was taken by the first<br \/>\nrespondent Insurance Company that there was a clear violation of the policy<br \/>\ncondition and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation<br \/>\nto the claimants so as to indemnify the petitioner herein.  According to one of<br \/>\nthe permit conditions,  the vehicle can carry only 25 persons, whereas, at the<br \/>\ntime of accident it was carrying  30 persons and therefore it is a clear<br \/>\nviolation of the said permit condition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.Accepting the said contentions of the Insurance Company viz., the<br \/>\nfirst respondent, the Tribunal has ordered compensation to be paid by the<br \/>\nInsurance Company to the claimants and thereafter right has been given to the<br \/>\nInsurance Company to recover the said award amounts paid to the claimants from<br \/>\nthe owner viz., the petitioner herein.  Challenging this part of the award, the<br \/>\nabove civil revision petitions have been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. The short question which arises for consideration in all the<br \/>\nCivil Revision Petitions is:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Whether mere violation of a policy condition in so far as it relates to the<br \/>\nnumber of persons would entitle the Insurance Company to avoid its liability to<br \/>\npay compensation to the claimants?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to<br \/>\nthe Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2004 ACJ 140 (M.<br \/>\nAnandavalliamma  v.Aravind Eye Hospital). After elaborately discussing the<br \/>\nvarious aspects relating to the violation of policy condition and having taken<br \/>\ninto account various judgments of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court, the Division Bench<br \/>\nin paragraph 19 and 20 of its judgment has held as follows:<br \/>\n&#8216;Merely by lifting a person or two, it cannot be said to be such a fundamental<br \/>\nbreach that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification.  The<br \/>\nbreach of the condition of the policy was somewhat irregular, though, but not so<br \/>\nfundamental in nature, so as to put an end to the contract, unless some factors<br \/>\nexisted, which, by themselves had gone to contribute to the causing of the<br \/>\naccident.  If the insurance company is able to prove that it is because of the<br \/>\npresence of additional persons who were allowed to occupy the vehicle, the<br \/>\naccident occurred, the position would be different.  Consequently, we hold that<br \/>\neven in cases where more passengers are taken with or without the knowledge or<br \/>\nimplied consent or even consent of the owner, unless the insurance company is<br \/>\nable to prove that the accident took place only because of such act (taking more<br \/>\npassengers) the insurance company will be liable to make good the<br \/>\nloss\/compensation.  It has to be noted that in the case on hand, it is not the<br \/>\ncontention of the insurance company that the accident had occurred because two<br \/>\npersons, over and above the prescribed limit in the policy, were travelling at<br \/>\nthe relevant time in the vehicle.  At this juncture, we may refer to a passage<br \/>\nfrom the judgment of the Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1182839\/\">Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v.<br \/>\nKokilaben Chandravadan,<\/a> 1987 ACT 411 (SC), wherein the court observed as under:<br \/>\n&#8220;Ordinarily it is not the concern of the legislature whether the owner of the<br \/>\nvehicle insures his vehicle or not.  If the vehicle is not insured any legal<br \/>\nliability arising on account of third party risk will have to be borne by the<br \/>\nowner of the vehicle.  Why then has the legislature insisted on a person using a<br \/>\nmotor vehicle in a public place to insure against third party risk by enacting<br \/>\nsection 94? Surely the obligation has not been imposed in order to promote the<br \/>\nbusiness of the insurers engaged in the business of automobile insurance.  The<br \/>\nprovision has been inserted in order to protect the members of the community<br \/>\ntravelling in vehicles or using the roads from the risk attendant upon the user<br \/>\nof motor vehicles on the roads.  The law may provide for compensation to victims<br \/>\nof the accidents who sustain injuries in the course of an automobile accident or<br \/>\ncompensation to the dependants of the victims in the case of a fatal accident.<br \/>\nHowever, such protection would remain a protection on paper unless there is a<br \/>\nguarantee that the compensation awarded by the courts would be recoverable from<br \/>\nthe persons held liable for the consequences of the accident.  A court can only<br \/>\npass an award or a decree.  It cannot ensure that such an award or decree<br \/>\nresults in the amount awarded being actually recovered, from the person held<br \/>\nliable who may not have the resources.  The exercise undertaken by the law<br \/>\ncourts would then be an exercise in futility.  And the outcome of the legal<br \/>\nproceedings which by the very nature of things involve the time cost and money<br \/>\ncost invested from the scarce resources of the community would make a mockery of<br \/>\nthe insured victims, or dependants of the deceased victim of the accident, who<br \/>\nthemselves are obliged to incur not inconsiderable expenditure of time, money<br \/>\nand energy in litigation.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20.Following the rulings stated supra, this court is inclined to hold that<br \/>\ninsurance company is certainly liable to compensate the claimants to the extent<br \/>\nindicated above.&#8217;<br \/>\nIn the case on hand also the  in the counter affidavit filed in the lower Court,<br \/>\nInsurance company had not pleaded that the accident was only because of taking<br \/>\nmore passengers and there is no eyewitness on the part of the Insurance Company<br \/>\nto prove that the accident was only because of taking more number of persons<br \/>\nthan the permitted number of passengers.  In view of the above decision of the<br \/>\nDivision Bench of this Hon&#8217;ble Court, I have to necessarily hold that the first<br \/>\nrespondent Insurance Company is legally liable to indemnify the petitioner with<br \/>\nreference to his liability to pay compensation to the petitioners\/claimants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.It is further contended by the learned counsel for the first<br \/>\nrespondent that in this case totally 30 persons have sustained injuries and<br \/>\ntherefore at least for this violation it should be held that the insurance<br \/>\ncompany is not liable to indemnify the petitioner.  On this question the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court in Branch<br \/>\nManager, National Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Murugesh &amp; Others (1998 -1 L.W. 59),<br \/>\nwherein in paragraph 16, this court has held as follows:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;16.The alternative contention taken by learned counsel for the appellant<br \/>\nis that under the Policy, the maximum liability that can be fastened on the<br \/>\nInsurance Company can be only in respect of six persons.  In this case, more<br \/>\nthan nine persons have filed their claim petitions, and the Insurance Company<br \/>\ncannot be made liable for all these claimants when there is a basis for the<br \/>\nliability under the terms of the policy, that alone can be the basis for the<br \/>\nliability.  A similar case came for consideration by a learned Judge of this<br \/>\nCourt (P.Sathasivam J)in C.R.P.Nos.643 to 647 and 667 to 672 of 1991 and<br \/>\nC.M.A.211 of 1991 (National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Chellakkannu and others) in<br \/>\nhis order dated 1.10.1996, the learned Judge has held, following various other<br \/>\ndecisions, that the Insurance Company might be made liable only to the extent<br \/>\nfor which it has agreed to be made liable.  In that case, the learned Judge held<br \/>\nthat the first seven claim petitioners will be entitled to claim the respective<br \/>\nportions of compensation amount from the Insurance Company.  Following the same<br \/>\nprocedure, I hold that the Insurance Company is made liable in so far as Claim<br \/>\nPetition Nos.117,122,123,125,127 and 128 of 1989 are concerned.  The claimants<br \/>\nin those cases will be entitled to recover compensation amount from the<br \/>\nInsurance Company also.  That means, in those cases, the Insurance Company is<br \/>\nalso made liable for paying the compensation amount.<br \/>\nRelying on the said decision, the learned counsel for the petitioner would<br \/>\ncontent that in the case on hand though 30 persons have sustained injuries only<br \/>\n18 persons have claimed compensation, which is far less than the permissive<br \/>\nnumber of passengers, viz. 25 as per the permit conditions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9.I have given a careful consideration to the rival contentions at<br \/>\nthis point and I have also perused the judgement of this Court referred to<br \/>\nabove.  This Court after having referred to various judgments has finally held<br \/>\nthat the Insurance Company should be made liable to the extent for which it<br \/>\nagreed.  In the instant case, the insurance company has agreed to indemnify the<br \/>\nowner of the vehicle in respect of 25 passengers, whereas the claimants are<br \/>\nonly 18 in numbers.   Therefore I have to necessarily  hold that the Insurance<br \/>\nCompany viz., the first respondent herein is liable to indemnify the petitioner<br \/>\nand as a result that part of the award in all these claim petitions giving right<br \/>\nto the first respondent insurance company to recover the award amounts from the<br \/>\npetitioner\/owner of the vehicle after paying the same to the claimants stands<br \/>\nset aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10. In the result, all these revision petitions are allowed.<br \/>\nConsidering the nature of the case, there is no order as to the costs.<br \/>\nConsequently, the connected M.P.s also closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,<br \/>\n  (Sub Court),<br \/>\n  Sivaganga.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court T. Ramaiya vs National Insurance Co on 29 March, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29\/03\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU C.R.P. NPD (MD) Nos.807 of 2006 AND C.R.P. NPD (MD) Nos.808 to 817 of 2006 and M.P. (MD) Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 and 1 OF 2006 T. Ramaiya .. [&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-114073","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>T. Ramaiya vs National Insurance Co on 29 March, 2007 - 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\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T. Ramaiya vs National Insurance Co on 29 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-13T00:43:01+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T. Ramaiya vs National Insurance Co on 29 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-13T00:43:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1898,\"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\\\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007\",\"name\":\"T. Ramaiya vs National Insurance Co on 29 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-13T00:43:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T. Ramaiya vs National Insurance Co on 29 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"T. Ramaiya vs National Insurance Co on 29 March, 2007 - 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\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T. Ramaiya vs National Insurance Co on 29 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-13T00:43:01+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T. Ramaiya vs National Insurance Co on 29 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-13T00:43:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007"},"wordCount":1898,"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\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007","name":"T. Ramaiya vs National Insurance Co on 29 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-13T00:43:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-ramaiya-vs-national-insurance-co-on-29-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T. Ramaiya vs National Insurance Co on 29 March, 2007"}]},{"@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\/114073","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=114073"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114073\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114073"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114073"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114073"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}