{"id":115365,"date":"2009-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009"},"modified":"2015-08-25T11:33:44","modified_gmt":"2015-08-25T06:03:44","slug":"national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"National Insurance Company … vs Meghji Naran Soratiya & Ors on 26 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
National Insurance Company … vs Meghji Naran Soratiya & Ors on 26 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: R Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, H.L. Dattu<\/div>\n
                                               1\n\n                                                       Reportable\n\n                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                      CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1171 OF 2002\n\n\n\n\nNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.                 ....... Appellant(s)\n\nVs.\n\nMEGHJI NARAN SORATIYA & ORS.                    ....... Respondent(s)\n\n                                    WITH\n\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 1172\/2002\n\n\n\n\n                                 O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
R.V. Raveendran, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       The    insurer    has    challenged    the     dismissal    of    its<\/p>\n
appeals      (against    the    awards   of   Motor     Accident     Claims<\/p>\n
Tribunal), by the Gujarat High Court on the sole ground<\/p>\n
that the Tribunal while granting permission to the insurer<\/p>\n
to    contest   the     claim   under    Section    170   of   the      Motor<\/p>\n
Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act’ for short) did not assign reasons<\/p>\n
for granting permission.\n<\/p>\n
                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
2.     Chapter XII of the Act relates to Claims Tribunals.<\/p>\n
Chapter XI relates to insurance of motor vehicles against<\/p>\n
third       party        risks.    The      scheme,         in      particular,          the<\/p>\n
provisions          of     section       170        read     with         section        149,<\/p>\n
contemplate the claimants in a motor accident claim filing<\/p>\n
the claim       petition        against       the    driver       and     owner     of    the<\/p>\n
motor vehicle. The claimants are required to furnish the<\/p>\n
particulars relating to insurance and the name and address<\/p>\n
of the insurer, but are not required to implead the insurer<\/p>\n
as    a   party      to    the     proceedings.            Having       regard     to     the<\/p>\n
statutory      obligation         imposed      on     the     insurer       to     satisfy<\/p>\n
judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of<\/p>\n
third party risks, the tribunal is required to issue notice<\/p>\n
to    the     insurer        about       the     initiation           of     the       claim<\/p>\n
proceedings. When such notice is given, the insurer can<\/p>\n
seek impleadment only for the limited purpose of defending<\/p>\n
the action on the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of<\/p>\n
section 149, that is, breach of a specified condition of<\/p>\n
the    policy       by    the     insured      (owner        of     the    vehicle)        or<\/p>\n
voidness\/invalidity of the policy by reason of the policy<\/p>\n
having been obtained by non-disclosure of material facts or<\/p>\n
by    representation         of    any    fact       which    was       false     in     some
\n                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
material particular. An insurer is not entitled to contest<\/p>\n
the claim     on    merits    when    it   received      such   notice   under<\/p>\n
section 149(2).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    However, section 170 of the Act requires the Tribunal<\/p>\n
to implead the insurer as a party to contest the claim in<\/p>\n
the following two circumstances,                 where it is satisfied<\/p>\n
that : (a) there is collusion between the persons making<\/p>\n
the claim and the person against whom the claim is made; or<\/p>\n
(b)   the   person       against   whom    claim   is     made,   failed   to<\/p>\n
contest the claim. The Tribunal is required to record the<\/p>\n
reasons in writing while directing the insurer who may be<\/p>\n
liable in respect of such claim to be impleaded as a party<\/p>\n
to the proceedings. On being so impleaded in pursuance of<\/p>\n
an order under section 170 of the Act, the insurer, without<\/p>\n
prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of<\/p>\n
section 149, has the right to contest the claim on all or<\/p>\n
any of the grounds that are available to the person against<\/p>\n
whom the claim has been made.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    Thus,        the      insurer        has     two      distinct       and<\/p>\n
compartmentalised rights, while defending against claims.<\/p>\n
First is where it wants to repudiate or deny liability as<\/p>\n
insurer, either on the ground that there is a breach of a
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
specified condition of the policy or on the ground that the<\/p>\n
policy itself is void. Participation under section 149(2)<\/p>\n
is   only   to     repudiate      or       deny       its   liability       under    the<\/p>\n
insurance policy. Neither the issue of liability of the<\/p>\n
driver\/owner nor the issue of quantum of compensation can<\/p>\n
be the subject matter of contest by the insurer who is<\/p>\n
served a notice under section 149(2). Second is where the<\/p>\n
insurer is        impleaded    as      a       respondent     with    the    right    to<\/p>\n
contest the claim even on merits, either on account of the<\/p>\n
Tribunal being satisfied that there is collusion between<\/p>\n
the claimants and the owner\/driver, or on account of the<\/p>\n
owner\/driver        who    have      been         impleaded      as    respondents,<\/p>\n
failing to contest the proceedings. When the insurer is<\/p>\n
impleaded and permitted to contest under section 170 of the<\/p>\n
Act,   it   can    contest       either         the    quantum   of    compensation<\/p>\n
claimed or even the liability of the driver\/owner to pay<\/p>\n
compensation. This is in addition to, and without prejudice<\/p>\n
to its statutory right under section 149(2) to repudiate or<\/p>\n
deny its liability.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.     Section 170 therefore proceeds on the assumption that<\/p>\n
the insurer will not be a party to the claim proceedings<\/p>\n
and requires for the Tribunal to implead it as a party to<\/p>\n
contest     the    claim    on      merits        in    the    two    circumstances
\n                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
mentioned therein, namely (a) collusion between claimants<\/p>\n
and   driver\/owner;     and   (b)       non-contest   by    driver\/owner.<\/p>\n
Where the insurer is not a party, and it becomes necessary<\/p>\n
to implead the insurer as a party-respondent under section<\/p>\n
170 of the Act, with right to contest the claim on merits,<\/p>\n
either on the application of the insurer or suo moto, the<\/p>\n
Tribunal    has   to   make   a     brief    order    recording         reasons<\/p>\n
showing that either of the two conditions mentioned in the<\/p>\n
section are satisfied for impleading the insurer as a party.<\/p>\n
6.    But in practice, virtually in all claim petitions, the<\/p>\n
insurer is impleaded as a party respondent alongwith the<\/p>\n
driver and owner. Consequently, many Tribunals instead of<\/p>\n
issuing the special notice under section 149(2) notifying<\/p>\n
the insurer of the lodging of a claim against the insured<\/p>\n
(so as to give the insurer an option to deny the validity<\/p>\n
of the policy or repudiate its liability under the policy<\/p>\n
under any of the grounds mentioned in section 149(2) of the<\/p>\n
Act), issues regular notice to the insurer. As a result, in<\/p>\n
practice    the   insurers       file    their   reply     in     all    claim<\/p>\n
petitions. They raise the grounds available under section<\/p>\n
149(2),    if   such   grounds    exist.    Otherwise      they    generally<\/p>\n
traverse the averments in the claim statement, though not<\/p>\n
permitted to contest on merits. But where one of the two
\n                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
circumstances        mentioned       in       section     170    exists,       that    is<\/p>\n
collusion or non-contest on the part of driver\/owner, then<\/p>\n
the insurer who is already a party, files an application<\/p>\n
under section 170 of the Act seeking permission to contest,<\/p>\n
which is routinely granted. Where the insurer is already a<\/p>\n
party respondent         in   the    claim       petition        and    it    makes    an<\/p>\n
application        seeking    permission            to   contest       the    claim    on<\/p>\n
merits on the ground that the driver and owner have failed<\/p>\n
to contest the claim, even a one-line order or non-reasoned<\/p>\n
order may be sufficient as the Tribunal can satisfy itself<\/p>\n
about the need to grant the permission by a perusal of the<\/p>\n
record, without anything more. But where the driver\/owner<\/p>\n
are defending the claim, but the insurer seeks permission<\/p>\n
on the ground that there is collusion between the claimants<\/p>\n
and the driver\/owner, it may be necessary for the tribunal<\/p>\n
to record reasons to show that it is satisfied                               that there<\/p>\n
is      collusion,         before         granting             permission.        Where<\/p>\n
applications       under     section      170       of   the    Act    filed    by    the<\/p>\n
insurer specifically alleged that the driver\/owner failed<\/p>\n
to     contest     the     claim     and        therefore        it     was     seeking<\/p>\n
permission, the same is verifiable from the record. On such<\/p>\n
verification, the Tribunal may pass a separate order or<\/p>\n
even endorse the order “granted” on the application itself.<\/p>\n
Even    if   any    reason     was     to      be    recorded,         all    that    the
\n                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
Tribunal is required to say is : “Permission is granted as<\/p>\n
driver\/owner have failed to contest the claim”. In such<\/p>\n
cases, failure to record reasons can not render the order<\/p>\n
invalid or illegal as the record on the face of it would<\/p>\n
show the claim was not being defended by the driver\/owner.<\/p>\n
Procedural requirements should not be stretched to absurd<\/p>\n
levels to defeat the ends of justice itself.<\/p>\n
7.    There is a prevalent view that a rethink on sections<\/p>\n
149 and 170 of the Act is necessary. As noticed above,<\/p>\n
Sections 149 contemplates claim petitions being filed only<\/p>\n
against    the   driver   and   the    owner,    and    the     driver\/owner<\/p>\n
alone    contesting   the    claim     on   merits.      The     insurer    is<\/p>\n
required to satisfy the award made by the Tribunal, even if<\/p>\n
it is not impleaded as a party to the claim proceedings.<\/p>\n
But in practice, the insurer is invariably made a party to<\/p>\n
the   claim   proceedings,      presumably      to   avoid     any   kind   of<\/p>\n
delay. It is also a reality that drivers who are primarily<\/p>\n
liable    seldom   contest   the   proceedings         either    because    of<\/p>\n
their financial incapacity or because they know that the<\/p>\n
burden will be borne vicariously by the owner and by the<\/p>\n
insurer under the policy of insurance. It is also a reality<\/p>\n
that many of the owners do not appear and contest the claim
\n                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
proceeding, or even if they appear and file a reply, do not<\/p>\n
defend   the     claim     by    effectively      cross-examining        the<\/p>\n
claimant’s     witnesses    and     by   leading     defence      evidence.<\/p>\n
Owners are complacent as they have an insurance cover and<\/p>\n
know that the insurer will bear the liability. In practice<\/p>\n
therefore the insurer has to keep on goading the owner to<\/p>\n
contest the matter and place necessary evidence. Section<\/p>\n
170 provides that if the driver\/owner fail to contest the<\/p>\n
claim, the Tribunal may permit the insurer to contest the<\/p>\n
claim. But what, if the driver\/owner file a reply but fail<\/p>\n
to effectively participate in the proceedings? What if the<\/p>\n
counsel for driver\/owner are present but resort to only<\/p>\n
cursory cross-examination?         What if the driver\/owner do not<\/p>\n
at all lead defence evidence? What if there is a well-<\/p>\n
planned collusion that does not meet the eye? Where the<\/p>\n
insurer does not get permission under section 170, there is<\/p>\n
a reasonable chance of the defence to the claim being far<\/p>\n
from satisfactory. Judicial notice can also be taken of the<\/p>\n
fact that there have been several false claims by claimants<\/p>\n
in   collusion   with     the    owners\/drivers    of    vehicle    and\/or<\/p>\n
Police and\/or doctors. The question raised is whether it is<\/p>\n
proper   to    prohibit    the    insurer,   which      is   to   bear   the<\/p>\n
liability statutorily and contractually, from participating<\/p>\n
in the process of adjudication of liability and assessment
\n                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
of compensation? Or the statute having made the insurer<\/p>\n
directly liable to the claimants, should the insurer be<\/p>\n
given a direct right to contest the claim on merits without<\/p>\n
the technical requirement of permission? Should the insurer<\/p>\n
always be at the mercy of the owner to contest the claim ?<\/p>\n
These   are   matters   that   invite   serious   consideration,<\/p>\n
particularly by the Parliament and Law Commission and other<\/p>\n
stake-holders. Be that as it may.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.   Coming to these cases, we are satisfied that the grant<\/p>\n
of permission by the Tribunal to the insurer to contest the<\/p>\n
proceedings does not call for interference. In the first<\/p>\n
case, both the driver and owner, though served, remained<\/p>\n
absent and did not contest the claim. In the second case,<\/p>\n
the driver was deleted from the array of parties as he<\/p>\n
could not be served and the owner entered appearance, but<\/p>\n
did not file statement of objections or contest the claim.<\/p>\n
The insurer specifically alleged in the applications under<\/p>\n
section 170 that the driver\/owner failed to contest the<\/p>\n
claim and therefore it was seeking permission.<\/p>\n
9.   Even assuming that order granting permission required<\/p>\n
recording of reasons, if the order failed to record reasons
\n                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
on being challenged, the High Court could either set aside<\/p>\n
the permission granted, with a direction to the Tribunal to<\/p>\n
reconsider the applications and pass a reasoned order, or<\/p>\n
in special circumstances, itself consider whether the case<\/p>\n
warranted the grant of permission and decide the question.<\/p>\n
But under no circumstances, the Tribunal’s permission to<\/p>\n
contest the claim, can be equated to or treated as denial<\/p>\n
of permission to contest the claim, merely on the ground<\/p>\n
that reasons were not recorded. Further, where the order<\/p>\n
granting the permission to contest is not challenged at<\/p>\n
all, the High Court can not dismiss the appeal filed by the<\/p>\n
insurer on    merits,   on   the    ground    that   Tribunal      did   not<\/p>\n
assign reasons while granting permission under Section 170<\/p>\n
of the Act.     Consequently, the orders of the High Court<\/p>\n
dismissing the appeals only on the ground that the Tribunal<\/p>\n
did not record reasons for granting permission, are liable<\/p>\n
to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   Having regard to the fact that the two appeals relate<\/p>\n
to accidents which took place in the years 1991 and 1996<\/p>\n
and the appeals have been pending in this Court for nearly<\/p>\n
seven years,    we   propose   to       consider   and   dispose    of   the<\/p>\n
appeals on merits, instead of relegating the parties to one<\/p>\n
more round of litigation before the High Court.
\n                                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
Civil Appeal No. 1171\/2002<\/p>\n
11.    The claim related to the death of a mason aged 58<\/p>\n
years in a motor accident which occurred in the year 1991.<\/p>\n
His son and daughter-in-law were the claimants and claimed<\/p>\n
a     compensation          of    Rs.     3     lakhs.      The     Tribunal        after<\/p>\n
considering the evidence, held that the deceased was aged<\/p>\n
55 to 58 years, that his income was Rs. 2,250\/- per month<\/p>\n
and that he was contributing                        Rs.1500\/- per month to the<\/p>\n
family.          It     however         restricted         the    annual      loss    of<\/p>\n
dependency       to    Rs.15,000\/-            instead      of    Rs.18000\/-    and    by<\/p>\n
applying     a    multiplier         of       10,    arrived      at   the    loss    of<\/p>\n
dependency       as    Rs.       1,50,000\/-.          It    awarded    Rs.    15,000\/-<\/p>\n
towards loss of estate, Rs. 5,000\/- for funeral expenses,<\/p>\n
Rs.5,000\/-       towards         medicines\/treatment             (as   the    deceased<\/p>\n
underwent treatment for a short period in a hospital before<\/p>\n
death). Thus it determined the compensation payable as Rs.<\/p>\n
1,75,000\/- and awarded the same with interest @ 15% per<\/p>\n
annum from the date of petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.    The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that<\/p>\n
when there was no clear and conclusive evidence that the<\/p>\n
married    son        and    daughter-in-law            were     dependent     on    the
\n                                           12<\/span><\/p>\n
deceased, the Tribunal erred in restricting the deduction<\/p>\n
towards    the    living\/personal               expenses      of    the    deceased        to<\/p>\n
only    one-third.            He    also    submitted         that       award       of   Rs.<\/p>\n
15,000\/- towards loss of estate was excessive.                                   There is<\/p>\n
some    merit    in     the    said       contentions.         We    will        therefore<\/p>\n
reassess    the       compensation.         The        Tribunal     found        that     the<\/p>\n
income    of     the    deceased          was    Rs.     2,250\/-         per     month     or<\/p>\n
Rs.27,000\/- per annum.                   There is no serious challenge to<\/p>\n
this finding. On the facts and circumstances of the case,<\/p>\n
50%    should    have    been       deducted       towards         the    personal        and<\/p>\n
living expenses of the deceased and not one-third. Thus,<\/p>\n
the    contribution       to       the    family        (or   the    saving          by   the<\/p>\n
deceased       even    assuming          that     the     claimants        were        fully<\/p>\n
dependant) would have been Rs. 13,500\/- per annum. There is<\/p>\n
nothing wrong in the multiplier applied (that is 10) as it<\/p>\n
is in consonance with the principles laid down in General<\/p>\n
Manager,    Kerala       State      Road        Transport      Corpn.       v.       Susamma<\/p>\n
Thomas<\/a> [1994 (2) SCC 176] and U.P. State Road Transport<\/p>\n
Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra<\/a> [1996 (4) SCC 362].                                   Therefore,<\/p>\n
the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,35,000\/-.                                      By<\/p>\n
adding Rs.5,000\/- each under the heads of loss of estate,<\/p>\n
funeral    expenses           and        cost     of     treatment,            the     total<\/p>\n
compensation is determined as Rs. 1,50,000\/-.
\n                                     13<\/span><\/p>\n
13.    We find that the award of interest at 15% per annum<\/p>\n
was excessive.       We are of the view that award of interest<\/p>\n
at 9% per annum would be appropriate, just and reasonable.<\/p>\n
14.    We therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of<\/p>\n
the High Court and reduce the award to Rs. 1,50,000\/- with<\/p>\n
interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition to date<\/p>\n
of deposit.\n<\/p>\n
Re : CA No. 1172\/2002<\/p>\n
15.    The claim related to the death of a bus conductor aged<\/p>\n
23 years in a motor accident in 1996. The claimants were<\/p>\n
his widow     aged   22    years,    two    minor   children    aged   three<\/p>\n
years and one year and parents.              The claimants stated that<\/p>\n
the    deceased    was     earning    Rs.    3,000\/-    per    month   plus<\/p>\n
Rs.600\/- as bhatta charges; that the deceased was pursuing<\/p>\n
his studies for Master’s degree, and that he would have<\/p>\n
earned Rs. 5,000\/- to 6,000\/- by securing other employment,<\/p>\n
after completing his studies.               The Tribunal held that the<\/p>\n
deceased would have earned at least Rs. 5,000\/- per month<\/p>\n
on    completing     his   studies.         After   deducting    one-third<\/p>\n
towards personal and living expenditure of the deceased, it<\/p>\n
arrived at the contribution to the family as Rs. 3334\/- per
\n                                        14<\/span><\/p>\n
month or Rs.48,008\/- per annum.                    It applied a multiplier of<\/p>\n
16    and    arrived    at    the    total    loss     of   dependency       as   Rs.<\/p>\n
6,40,128\/-.         By adding Rs. 20,000\/- towards loss of estate,<\/p>\n
Rs. 10,000\/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000\/-<\/p>\n
towards funeral expenses, the Tribunal determined the total<\/p>\n
compensation as Rs. 6,72,128\/- and awarded the same with<\/p>\n
interest at Rs. 15% from the date of petition till the date<\/p>\n
of deposit.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.    The learned counsel for the insurer submitted that in<\/p>\n
view    of    the     admissions      and     evidence      that    deceased      was<\/p>\n
getting a salary of Rs. 3,000\/- , the Tribunal ought not to<\/p>\n
take    the    income    at    a    figure    more     than   Rs.       3,000\/-   per<\/p>\n
month.        But having regard to the fact that the claimants<\/p>\n
had produced evidence to show that the deceased had passed<\/p>\n
B.A. and was studying for securing a M.A. degree, we are of<\/p>\n
the view       that    the    Tribunal       was    justified      in    assuming   a<\/p>\n
higher income at the time of death instead of the actual<\/p>\n
earning at the time of his death.                    But the amount assessed<\/p>\n
as income cannot be a fancy figure. It should be realistic<\/p>\n
and should be close to the actual earning (vide Susamma<\/p>\n
Thomas (supra) and Sarala Dixit v. Balwant Yadav<\/a> — AIR<\/p>\n
1996 SC 1274). On the facts and circumstances, we are of<\/p>\n
the view that the income should be taken as Rs. 4,000\/- per
\n                                           15<\/span><\/p>\n
month (Rs. 48,000\/- per annum).                         Only one-fourth of the<\/p>\n
income     (instead      of     the    standard          one-third)      has    to     be<\/p>\n
deducted    towards       personal         and         living   expenses        of    the<\/p>\n
deceased,    having       regard      to     his       larger   family.      Thus     the<\/p>\n
contribution to the family would have been Rs. 36,000\/- per<\/p>\n
annum.      By   applying        a    multiplier          of    17,    the     loss   of<\/p>\n
dependency would be Rs. 6,12,000\/-.                       By adding Rs, 5,000\/-<\/p>\n
each under the heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium<\/p>\n
and funeral expenses, the total compensation would be Rs.<\/p>\n
6,27,000\/-.         As    the    rate      of     interest      awarded      (15%     per<\/p>\n
annum) is excessive, we reduce it to 9% per annum.<\/p>\n
17.   We   accordingly          allowed         this    appeal,    set    aside       the<\/p>\n
order of the High Court and modify the award by reducing it<\/p>\n
to Rs. 6,27,000\/- with interest at 9% per annum from the<\/p>\n
date of petition till date of relief. We direct that the<\/p>\n
compensation     be      apportioned         in    the    ratio   of     40%    to    the<\/p>\n
widow, 20% each to the two minor children and the mother.<\/p>\n
The      Tribunal        shall        make        appropriate         consequential<\/p>\n
directions relating to bank deposits.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                _________________J
\n                                                                [R. V. Raveendran]<\/p>\n
                                                                _________________J
\n                                                                 [H.L. Dattu]
\n                     16<\/span><\/p>\n
New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
February 26, 2009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India National Insurance Company … vs Meghji Naran Soratiya & Ors on 26 February, 2009 Author: R Raveendran Bench: R.V. Raveendran, H.L. Dattu 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1171 OF 2002 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ……. Appellant(s) Vs. MEGHJI NARAN SORATIYA & ORS. […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115365","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNational Insurance Company ... vs Meghji Naran Soratiya & Ors on 26 February, 2009 - 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\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"National Insurance Company ... vs Meghji Naran Soratiya & Ors on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-25T06:03:44+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"National Insurance Company … vs Meghji Naran Soratiya & Ors on 26 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-25T06:03:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3002,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009\",\"name\":\"National Insurance Company ... vs Meghji Naran Soratiya & Ors on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-25T06:03:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"National Insurance Company … vs Meghji Naran Soratiya & Ors on 26 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"National Insurance Company ... vs Meghji Naran Soratiya & Ors on 26 February, 2009 - 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\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"National Insurance Company ... vs Meghji Naran Soratiya & Ors on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-25T06:03:44+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"National Insurance Company … vs Meghji Naran Soratiya & Ors on 26 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-25T06:03:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009"},"wordCount":3002,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009","name":"National Insurance Company ... vs Meghji Naran Soratiya & Ors on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-25T06:03:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-meghji-naran-soratiya-ors-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"National Insurance Company … vs Meghji Naran Soratiya & Ors on 26 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/115365","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=115365"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115365\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115365"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115365"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115365"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}