{"id":122580,"date":"2008-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008"},"modified":"2016-06-28T21:28:53","modified_gmt":"2016-06-28T15:58:53","slug":"vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Vaga vs N.I.C.Ltd.& Ors on 6 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Vaga vs N.I.C.Ltd.& Ors on 6 August, 2008<\/div>\n
                                 1\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n                  AT JODHPUR\n\n                      JUDGMENT\n\n\n     VAGA VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY & ORS.\n\n\n           S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2578\/2007\n          against     the   judgment    and award\n          dated 14.08.2007 passed        by     the\n          learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims\n          Tribunal, Addl.District & Sessions Judge,\n          (Fast Track No.4), Udaipur , in Motor\n          Accident Claim Case No.612\/2006.\n\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT            ::                  06.08.08\n\n                          PRESENT\n\n\n          HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANAK MOHTA\n\n\nMr.Deepak Menaria for the appellant.\nMr.R.K.Singhal for the respondents.\n\n\nBY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
     The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-<\/p>\n
appellant against the judgment and award dated 14.08.2007<\/p>\n
passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,<\/p>\n
Addl. District & Sessions Judge,(Fast Track No.4), Udaipur ,<\/p>\n
in Motor Accident Claim     Case No.612\/2006, whereby the
\n                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition          in<\/p>\n
favour of the claimant-appellant and against respondents,<\/p>\n
holding them jointly and severally responsible for the payment<\/p>\n
of   total compensation of Rs.26,000\/-(inclusive the amount<\/p>\n
awarded under ‘No Fault Liability’)    with interest @ 9% per<\/p>\n
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. 10.02.05<\/p>\n
and further directed them       to make the entire payment to<\/p>\n
claimant appellant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     The brief facts of the case, which are relevant for      the<\/p>\n
disposal of the appeal are that on 11.04.04 , the claimant-<\/p>\n
appellant was going from Jhadol,        towards    Phalasiya by<\/p>\n
travelling in jeep bearing No.RJ.27-T-0861. When the jeep<\/p>\n
reached near the gate of RSEB office, at village Keerat, a jeep<\/p>\n
coming from Phalasiya, bearing No.RJ.06-T-0325 which was<\/p>\n
being rashly and negligently driven by its driver Babu, non-<\/p>\n
claimant No.3, dashed against the jeep in which the claimant<\/p>\n
appellant was travelling, as a result of which, the claimant<\/p>\n
appellant sustained several grievous injuries. The report of the<\/p>\n
said incident was lodged at Police Station, Phalasiya , were<\/p>\n
Cr.Case   No.41\/2004     was   registered      and after    usual<\/p>\n
investigation, the Investigating Officer came to the finding that
\n                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the<\/p>\n
jeep by    its   driver Babu ,non-claimant   No.3.    As such, a<\/p>\n
challan was filed against him for the offences under section<\/p>\n
279, 337 338 and 304-A IPC, before the court of Addl.Chief<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate, Jhadol. It was also stated that at the time<\/p>\n
of accident the said jeep was owned by Chhagan Lal, non-<\/p>\n
claimant No.2 and was insured         with National Insurance<\/p>\n
Company, non-claimant No.1.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The claimant submitted a claim petition before the Motor<\/p>\n
Accident Claims Tribunal, Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Fast<\/p>\n
Track No.4,Udaipur on 10.02.2005, under Section 166 of the<\/p>\n
M.V. Act, for awarding adequate compensation on account of<\/p>\n
injuries sustained by him in the said motor accident. In the<\/p>\n
claim petition, it was averred that the claimant was only of 36<\/p>\n
years at the time of accident and he was earning Rs.5,000\/-<\/p>\n
per month by doing masonry work and          on account of said<\/p>\n
accident, he became incapable to undertake the masonry work.<\/p>\n
It was submitted that he remained under treatment for several<\/p>\n
months . It was further submitted that due to        injuries,   he<\/p>\n
suffered a lot of monitory loss as well as mental shock. On the<\/p>\n
basis of these facts, a total sum of Rs.4,48,000\/- was claimed
\n                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
against non-claimants, as compensation under various heads.<\/p>\n
Notices of the claim petition were served on the non-claimants.<\/p>\n
        Non-claimant No.1,insurer of the said jeep , filed its<\/p>\n
reply and denied the allegations, pleaded in the claim petition<\/p>\n
and further stated that accident occurred due to the clashing<\/p>\n
of    both the jeeps   and it   happened   due to the rash and<\/p>\n
negligent driving of Jeep No.RJ.27-T-0861 by its driver. It was<\/p>\n
further averred that the claimant appellant has not made the<\/p>\n
driver, owner and insurer of jeep No.RJ.27-T-0861 as<\/p>\n
partiesand further stated that the non-claimant No.3, driver of<\/p>\n
the jeep      was not in possession of a valid and effective<\/p>\n
licence at the time of accident and the driver was also not in<\/p>\n
possession of permit to drive the vehicle in the alleged route<\/p>\n
and    the insurer was not informed of the occurrence of the<\/p>\n
accident in time, as such, the Insurance Company cannot be<\/p>\n
held responsible for the payment of compensation and it was<\/p>\n
prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed.<\/p>\n
       Chhaganlal, non-claimant No.2, owner and Babu, non-<\/p>\n
claimant No.3, driver of the jeep, filed their reply and denied<\/p>\n
all the allegations pleaded in the claim petition and further
\n                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent<\/p>\n
driving of jeep No.RJ.27-T-0861 by its driver. It was also stated<\/p>\n
that since jeep was insured with non-claimant No.1, insurer,<\/p>\n
therefore, in case of compensation, the Insurance Company is<\/p>\n
responsible for the payment of same, and prayed to dismiss<\/p>\n
the claim petition against them.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     The learned Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties,<\/p>\n
framed relevant issues with regard to responsibility of causing<\/p>\n
accident and with regard to quantum of compensation.<\/p>\n
     The claimant-appellant got examined herself as AW\/1<\/p>\n
and also got exhibited documents produced by him , Ex.2, to<\/p>\n
Ex.15 in support of his claim.         In rebuttal, the non-claimants<\/p>\n
neither got examined any witness                nor   exhibited any<\/p>\n
document in defence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     The learned Tribunal, after hearing both the sides, held<\/p>\n
that due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No.RJ.06-T-0325<\/p>\n
by its driver, the   accident occurred and in that accident the<\/p>\n
claimant -appellant     sustained several injuries.         Vide its<\/p>\n
judgment and award dated 14.08.07 , after considering the age
\n                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
and income of the claimant, awarded a total compensation of<\/p>\n
Rs.26,000\/-, plus interest thereon @ 9%           per annum, holding<\/p>\n
non-applicants jointly and severally responsible for the payment<\/p>\n
of the same.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     The claimant-appellant,            being felt aggrieved and<\/p>\n
dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, as awarded by<\/p>\n
the learned Tribunal, has preferred this appeal against the<\/p>\n
judgment and award dated 14.08.07             and made submissions<\/p>\n
for enhancement of the compensation amount. Notice of<\/p>\n
appeal was given to the respondents, record of the case was<\/p>\n
called and the parties were heard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly<\/p>\n
considered     and   appreciated       the   facts,     with   regard   to<\/p>\n
determination of adequate compensation and determined a<\/p>\n
meagre amount of compensation, that is required to be<\/p>\n
modified and enhanced.      It was further            submitted that the<\/p>\n
claimant   has received several injuries on his person and on<\/p>\n
the basis of injuries sustained by him, a certificate in respect<\/p>\n
of permanent disability had been issued by the Doctor, Ex.13,
\n                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
by which his efficiency has been found to be reduced by 10%.<\/p>\n
It was stated that looking to the age of the appellant, as proved<\/p>\n
to be 38 years and taking into consideration his income ,<\/p>\n
Rs.200\/- per day,     a reasonable compensation, under the<\/p>\n
head of permanent disability, should have been determined.<\/p>\n
But the learned tribunal has determined compensation without<\/p>\n
any basis ,a lump sum amount of Rs.20,000\/- under that head<\/p>\n
and awarded a     petty amount     for the pain and agony and<\/p>\n
suffering and medical expenses and in this way, a total amount<\/p>\n
of Rs.26,000\/- has been awarded. On the basis of these<\/p>\n
submissions, it was urged that adequate compensation may<\/p>\n
be determined and awarded, and the appeal may be allowed.<\/p>\n
     On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent<\/p>\n
supported the judgment and award        passed by the learned<\/p>\n
tribunal and submitted that reasonable compensation has been<\/p>\n
awarded and there is no scope for further enhancement.<\/p>\n
     I have considered the rival contentions and perused the<\/p>\n
finding and conclusion drawn thereon.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     The main question       remains for consideration in the
\n                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
appeal is whether the awarded compensation is not adequate,<\/p>\n
just and reasonable, and it requires enhancement ?.<\/p>\n
     In this respect , I have seen the submission of claimant,<\/p>\n
as well as the material placed from his side. The claimant<\/p>\n
appellant has stated that several injuries have been sustained<\/p>\n
by him in accident, he remained hospitalised for several days<\/p>\n
and plaster treatment was    done. On the basis of       injuries<\/p>\n
sustained by him , permanent disability has been certified by a<\/p>\n
team of Govt.   doctors upto the extent of 10%. Injuries are<\/p>\n
further supported by his statement, as well as other material<\/p>\n
placed on record and there is no rebuttal from the other side.<\/p>\n
The learned tribunal has determined a lumpsum compensation<\/p>\n
of Rs.20,000\/- in this respect. Looking to the age and injuries<\/p>\n
sustained by him, and the income as stated by the claimant, I<\/p>\n
find that the awarded compensation in this respect is on the<\/p>\n
lower side, and is not found just and reasonable. Taking into<\/p>\n
consideration the percentage       of disability   shown by the<\/p>\n
doctors, vide Ex.13, it comes to more that Rs.35,000\/- but the<\/p>\n
learned tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000\/- under this head.<\/p>\n
     Considering the over all facts of the case, an additional
\n                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
sum of compensation of Rs.15,000\/ is required to be added<\/p>\n
in the awarded compensation of Rs.26,000\/-. That comes to<\/p>\n
Rs.41,000\/- Considering the facts,      the claimant appellant is<\/p>\n
also entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount, at<\/p>\n
the same rate as awarded by the learned tribunal, i.e. 9% per<\/p>\n
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.<\/p>\n
           On the basis of the   aforesaid discussion, in the net<\/p>\n
result, the appeal is partly allowed and the awarded<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.26,000\/- is enhanced by Rs.15,000\/- ,<\/p>\n
that comes to Rs.41,000\/. Further,        the   appellant will get<\/p>\n
interest @ 9% per annum , on the enhanced amount, from the<\/p>\n
date of filing of the claim petition. Rest of the judgment is<\/p>\n
confirmed. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                            (MANAK MOHTA), J.\n<\/p>\n
l.george\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Vaga vs N.I.C.Ltd.& Ors on 6 August, 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT VAGA VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY & ORS. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2578\/2007 against the judgment and award dated 14.08.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Addl.District & […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-122580","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nVaga vs N.I.C.Ltd.& Ors on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vaga vs N.I.C.Ltd.& Ors on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-28T15:58:53+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vaga vs N.I.C.Ltd.& Ors on 6 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-28T15:58:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1510,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Vaga vs N.I.C.Ltd.& Ors on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-28T15:58:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vaga vs N.I.C.Ltd.& Ors on 6 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vaga vs N.I.C.Ltd.& Ors on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vaga vs N.I.C.Ltd.& Ors on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-28T15:58:53+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vaga vs N.I.C.Ltd.& Ors on 6 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-28T15:58:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008"},"wordCount":1510,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008","name":"Vaga vs N.I.C.Ltd.& Ors on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-28T15:58:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaga-vs-n-i-c-ltd-ors-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vaga vs N.I.C.Ltd.& Ors on 6 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122580","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=122580"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122580\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122580"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122580"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122580"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}