{"id":130248,"date":"2007-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007"},"modified":"2016-03-07T19:28:16","modified_gmt":"2016-03-07T13:58:16","slug":"4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"4 Neeti Jain vs 3 National Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
4 Neeti Jain vs 3 National Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR        \n\n        MA No 135 of 1997\n\n        1 Smt Nirmala Singhvi\n\n        2 Netin\n\n        3 Ku Neerja\n\n        4 Neeti jain\n\n                          ...Petitioners\n\n                             VERSUS\n\n        1 Govardhan Dhruv\n\n        2 Shashikant Attwani\n\n        3 National Insurance Co Ltd\n\n                          ...Respondents\n\n!       Miss Madhu Modi counsel for the appellants claimants\n\n^       Shri P R Patankar counsel for the respondent no 3 Insurance Company\n\n        Honble Shri Jagdish Bhalla Ag CJ &\n\n        Honble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh J\n\n        Dated: 30\/07\/2007\n\n:       Order\n\n\n\n\n        Appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Accidents\n\n        Claims Act, 1988 for enhancement of the compensation\n\n        amount awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal\n\n\n\n\n                       O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
         (Passed on this 30th day of July 2007)<\/p>\n
     The following order of the Court was delivered  by
\nDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.\n<\/p>\n
      In  this  appeal by the appellants\/claimants  for<\/p>\n
enhancement  of  compensation,  the  award  dated  23rd<\/p>\n
August,  1996  passed  by  the  7th  Additional   Motor<\/p>\n
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (hereinafter referred<\/p>\n
to  as  `the  M.A.C.T.’) in claim case No. 19  of  1995<\/p>\n
awarding  compensation of Rs.1,31,000\/- for  accidental<\/p>\n
death  of  Neelamchand Singhvi, aged about 57 years,  a<\/p>\n
Superintending Engineer in Public Works  Department  at<\/p>\n
Raipur, is under challenge.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    It  is  not  in dispute in this  appeal  that  on<\/p>\n
12.11.1993 while Neelamchand Singhvi was returning from <\/p>\n
the  Railway  Station to his home  by  Maruti  Van  No.<\/p>\n
M.P.002\/0180,  it  was  hit by  a  truck  No.C.P.S.9754<\/p>\n
driven  by  respondent\/non-applicant  No.1,  owned   by<\/p>\n
respondent\/non-applicant   No.2    and    insured    by<\/p>\n
respondent\/non-applicant No.3.   As  a  result  of  the<\/p>\n
accident Neelamchand Singhvi sustained serious injuries<\/p>\n
and  during  hospitalization  at  Government  Hospital,<\/p>\n
Raipur,  was  shifted  to  Nagpur  where  he  died   on<\/p>\n
28.11.1993.   After  the death of Neelamchand  Singhvi,<\/p>\n
the  appellant  No.1\/claimant i.e. widow  is  receiving<\/p>\n
family   pension  at  Rs.3,126\/-  every   month.    The<\/p>\n
appellants\/claimants No.2 and 3 are  the  son  and  the<\/p>\n
daughter  of the deceased.  Another daughter  i.e.  the<\/p>\n
appellant\/claimant No.4 Ms. Neeti Jain is married.   It<\/p>\n
is  also not in dispute that the accident occurred  due<\/p>\n
to  negligence of the driver of truck No.C.P.S.9754 and<\/p>\n
respondent\/non-applicant  No.3  is  under  a  statutory<\/p>\n
liability to pay compensation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.     The  learned  M.A.C.T.  has,  on  the  basis  of<\/p>\n
admission   of                 Ms.   Nirmala   Singhvi,<\/p>\n
assessed monthly dependency at Rs.5,000\/- per month and   <\/p>\n
recorded  finding  that on the  date  of  accident  the<\/p>\n
deceased was aged 57 years i.e. in the age group of  55<\/p>\n
to  60 years, and therefore, applied multiplier of 8 on<\/p>\n
the  basis of second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as the Act).  However, on  the<\/p>\n
basis of admission by Smt. Nirmala Singhvi that she was<\/p>\n
receiving  Rs.3,126\/- per month as family  pension  and<\/p>\n
had  also  received  75,000\/- towards  provident  fund,<\/p>\n
Rs.2,00,000\/- towards gratuity and Rs.20,000\/- from the<\/p>\n
Association,   the  M.A.C.T.  reduced   the   loss   of<\/p>\n
dependency  to  Rs.1,000\/- per month and  applying  the<\/p>\n
multiplier  of  8,  as provided under second  schedule,<\/p>\n
assessed  loss of dependency at Rs.96,000\/- (Rs.1,000\/-<\/p>\n
x 12 x 8).  Despite non-production of proof of expenses<\/p>\n
incurred  on  conveyance  from  Raipur  to  Nagpur  for<\/p>\n
hospitalization  and  treatment during  hospitalization<\/p>\n
and  also the statement of Nitin Singhvi that  some  of<\/p>\n
the expenses incurred on treatment were reimbursed, the<\/p>\n
learned M.A.C.T. awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.20,000\/-  <\/p>\n
towards   conveyance  charges  for  taking  Neelamchand<\/p>\n
Singhvi  to  Nagpur  and  for  expenses  in  treatment.<\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/- was awarded for loss of consortium  to  the<\/p>\n
appellant\/claimant No.1.  Nothing was  awarded  towards<\/p>\n
loss  of estate and loss of love and affection  to  the<\/p>\n
three children.  The learned M.A.C.T. did not award any<\/p>\n
amount towards funeral expenses on the ground that even <\/p>\n
if  Neelamchand Singhvi had died a natural death,  such<\/p>\n
expenses would have been incurred.  In this manner, the<\/p>\n
learned  M.A.C.T.  awarded a sum  of  Rs.1,31,000\/-  as<\/p>\n
compensation and disentitled the appellants No. 2  &  4<\/p>\n
i.e.  the  son and the married daughter of the deceased<\/p>\n
from  receiving  any part thereof on  the  ground  that<\/p>\n
while  the son was an earning member, the daughter  had<\/p>\n
already got married.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.     Miss   Madhu  Modi,  learned  counsel  for   the<\/p>\n
appellants\/claimants   urged  that   the   compensation<\/p>\n
awarded  by the learned M.A.C.T. is niggardly  low  and<\/p>\n
contended that the learned M.A.C.T. ought not  to  have<\/p>\n
taken  into consideration the amount of family  pension<\/p>\n
while  reducing  the loss of dependency  to  Rs.1,000\/-<\/p>\n
because  even if Neelamchand Singhvi had died a natural<\/p>\n
death,  such  pension would have been received  by  the<\/p>\n
family.   Reliance was placed on Smt. Fulmati  Bai  and<\/p>\n
others v. Panchamsingh and others A.I.R.1998 M.P.  173. <\/p>\n
It was next contended that the accident had occurred on<\/p>\n
12.11.1993  whereas the second schedule  to  the  Motor<\/p>\n
Vehicles  Act,  1988 came into force  w.e.f.  14.11.94.<\/p>\n
Placing reliance on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and<\/p>\n
others  vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others  (2002)  6<\/p>\n
SCC  281  and V.S.Gowdar vs. Oriental Insurance Company   <\/p>\n
Limited  II  (2002)  ACC  559, a  full  Bench  decision<\/p>\n
rendered by the Karnataka High Court, it was urged that<\/p>\n
the  correct multiplier to be applied for  age 57 years<\/p>\n
is  9.    It was also urged that the Tribunal erred  in<\/p>\n
holding that the married son and daughter who were  not<\/p>\n
the  dependents  of the deceased were not  entitled  to<\/p>\n
compensation.  They  being legal representatives  under<\/p>\n
section   166   of  the  Act  could   not   be   denied<\/p>\n
compensation.  Reliance was placed on Smt. Manjuri Bera  <\/p>\n
vs.  Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/a>  2007 AIR SCW 1962 and<\/p>\n
Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and others vs. Maharashtra State<\/p>\n
Road Transport Corporation and<\/a> another (1999) 1 SCC 90. <\/p>\n
5.    On  the other hand, Shri P. R. Patankar,  learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the Insurance Company argued in support  of<\/p>\n
the amount awarded.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.    Having considered the rival contentions, we  have<\/p>\n
perused the record.  In this appeal, it is not disputed<\/p>\n
that Neelamchand Singhvi was Superintending Engineer in <\/p>\n
Bridge  Corporation, Public Works  Department  and  was<\/p>\n
aged about 57 years, on the date of accident, which had<\/p>\n
occurred on 12.11.1993.  It is also not in dispute that<\/p>\n
he  died  on  28.11.1993.  The second schedule  to  the<\/p>\n
Motor  Vehicles  Act was introduced w.e.f.  14.11.1994.<\/p>\n
Miss    Madhu   Modi,   learned   counsel    for    the<\/p>\n
appellants\/claimants  urged  that  relying   upon   the<\/p>\n
principles  laid down in General Manager, Kerala  State<\/p>\n
Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Mrs. Susamma  <\/p>\n
Thomas and others AIR<\/a> 1994 SC 1631, a Division Bench of  <\/p>\n
the  Karnataka  High  Court  drew  up  the  appropriate<\/p>\n
multiplier  for different age groups in a tabular  form<\/p>\n
wherein the multiplier 9 is applicable for age group of<\/p>\n
53-57  years  in  case of accidents occurred  prior  to<\/p>\n
14.11.1994  and submitted that this was further  relied<\/p>\n
in   V.S.Gowder’s  case  (supra).   Under  the   second<\/p>\n
schedule   introduced  from  14.11.1994,  the   correct<\/p>\n
multiplier applicable for age group of 55-60  years  is<\/p>\n
8.   Smt. Nirmala Singhvi did not depose the age of the<\/p>\n
deceased  on  the date of the accident.   Her  son  Dr.<\/p>\n
S.K.Choubey  A.W.2 also remained silent on this  point.<\/p>\n
A perusal of the record shows that no documentary proof<\/p>\n
whatsoever  was filed by the claimants on  this  count.<\/p>\n
Even in the application for compensation, although  the<\/p>\n
age   of   Neelamchand  Singhvi   was   shown   to   be<\/p>\n
approximately 57 years, yet it was further stated  that<\/p>\n
only  8  months  were  left for  his  retirement.   The<\/p>\n
M.A.C.T.  has, therefore, rightly assessed the  age  of<\/p>\n
the  deceased  as more than 57 years  on  the  date  of<\/p>\n
accident.   Therefore, since the deceased had completed<\/p>\n
57 years and four months, the Tribunal was justified in<\/p>\n
applying the multiplier 8 instead of multiplier 9.   In<\/p>\n
the  tabular form drawn in Gulam Khader and Another vs.<\/p>\n
United India Insurance Company Limited and another  ILR<\/p>\n
2000 Kar. 4416, multiplier 9 was applicable only to the<\/p>\n
age  group  of 53 to 57 years.  Since the deceased  was<\/p>\n
more  than  57 years, we are of the considered  opinion<\/p>\n
that  the  M.A.C.T. committed no error in applying  the<\/p>\n
multiplier of 8.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.    No  documentary  proof of  the  salary  drawn  by<\/p>\n
Neelamchand Singhvi was produced and no such  fact  was  <\/p>\n
pleaded   by   the   appellants\/claimants   in    their<\/p>\n
application under Section 166 of the Act.  The M.A.C.T.<\/p>\n
has  accepted the unrebutted testimony of Smt.  Nirmala<\/p>\n
Singhvi  that  she used to receive a sum of  Rs.5,000\/-<\/p>\n
every  month  from  her  husband for  expenses  towards<\/p>\n
family.   Taking into consideration the  post  held  by<\/p>\n
Neelamchand  Singhvi  such  inference  drawn   by   the<\/p>\n
M.A.C.T.  is justified.  The M.A.C.T. has thus  rightly<\/p>\n
held that the loss of monthly dependency was Rs.5,000\/-<\/p>\n
8.    The  M.A.C.T.  took this fact into  consideration<\/p>\n
that  Smt. Nirmala Singhvi was receiving family pension<\/p>\n
of  Rs.3,126\/- every month and had also received a  sum<\/p>\n
of  Rs.75,000\/-  towards provident fund,  Rs.2,00,000\/-<\/p>\n
towards  gratuity and Rs.20,000\/- from the Association.<\/p>\n
However, the approach of the Tribunal in deducting  the<\/p>\n
aforesaid sums from the monthly dependency of Rs.5,000\/- <\/p>\n
was  wholly incorrect.  In Smt. Fulmati Bai and  others<\/p>\n
v.  Panchamsingh  and  others  A.I.R.1998  M.P.  173  a<\/p>\n
similar  question  arose  before  the  Apex  Court  for<\/p>\n
consideration.  The Apex Court observed as follows:<\/p>\n
           “10. We have also examined the matter.
\n     Simply because the widow of the deceased  is
\n     entitled   to   family  pension   or   other
\n     perquisites on account of the death  of  her
\n     husband,   has  no  co-relation   with   the
\n     dependency which has to be worked out  under
\n     the  Motor Vehicles Act.  As per the service
\n     conditions, even otherwise also,  in  normal
\n     course,  if a husband dies a natural  death,
\n     then  also  family pension is  paid  to  the
\n     deceased’s  dependents.   Today   also   the
\n     perquisites  which  are being  paid  to  the
\n     dependents   of  the  deceased  even   while
\n     serving  in  the  Institutions,  are  social
\n     measures  and they have nothing to  do  with
\n     the  death  of  the deceased while  dying  a
\n     natural  death  or by accident.   Therefore,
\n     on  account of the death of the deceased  in
\n     an  accident,  such amount cannot  be  taken
\n     into  consideration, because even  otherwise
\n     also  in  normal  course, in  the  event  of
\n     natural  death,  the family members  of  the
\n     deceased   are  entitled  to  that  benefit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Therefore,   that  cannot  be   taken   into
\n     consideration    for   working    out    the
\n     dependency of the family members.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.    It  is  thus  clear that neither  the  amount  of<\/p>\n
Rs.3,500\/- which the widow of the deceased was  getting<\/p>\n
as  family  pension could be deducted from the  monthly<\/p>\n
dependency  of Rs.5,000\/- nor the amount  of  gratuity,<\/p>\n
provident  fund  and  contribution by  the  Association<\/p>\n
could  be  taken  into consideration for  reducing  the<\/p>\n
monthly dependency.  In this view of the matter, we are<\/p>\n
of  the  considered opinion that the  M.A.C.T.  grossly<\/p>\n
erred in determining the loss of monthly dependency  at<\/p>\n
a niggardly low amount of Rs.1,000\/-.  In the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, we take the loss of  monthly<\/p>\n
dependency  at  Rs.5,000\/- per month.  Considering  the<\/p>\n
post  held  by  Neelamchand  Singhvi,  we  are  of  the<\/p>\n
considered  opinion that even after his  retirement  he<\/p>\n
would  have  continued to provide a minimum  amount  of<\/p>\n
Rs.5,000\/-  every month to his widow.   We,  therefore,<\/p>\n
determine  loss of dependency at Rs.5,000\/- and  assess<\/p>\n
total loss of dependency at Rs.4,80,000\/- (Rs.5000 x 12<\/p>\n
x 8).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.    Nothing  was  awarded  by  the  M.A.C.T.   under<\/p>\n
conventional heads. Except awarding loss of  consortium<\/p>\n
at  Rs.15,000\/-.   Nothing was awarded towards loss  of<\/p>\n
estate  and  funeral  expenses.  The  approach  of  the<\/p>\n
M.A.C.T.  that  even in case of natural death  expenses<\/p>\n
towards   funeral   would  have  been   incurred,   and<\/p>\n
therefore,  it  could not be taken  into  consideration<\/p>\n
while  awarding compensation under Section 166  of  the<\/p>\n
Act   is   ridiculous.   Considering  the   facts   and<\/p>\n
circumstances  of the case, we deem  it  fit  to  award<\/p>\n
Rs.5,000\/-  towards  funeral expenses  and  Rs.25,000\/-<\/p>\n
towards loss of estate.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.  Ms. Madhu Modi, learned counsel for the appellants<\/p>\n
placed  reliance  on  Smt. Manjuri  Bera  vs.  Oriental<\/p>\n
Insurance  Co. Ltd.<\/a>  2007 AIR SCW 1962 wherein  it  was<\/p>\n
held that a married daughter of the deceased though not<\/p>\n
dependent   on  the  deceased  is  also   entitled   to<\/p>\n
compensation as she falls under the category  of  legal<\/p>\n
representative under Section 166 of the Act.   However,<\/p>\n
in  that  case,  the  Apex Court  was  considering  the<\/p>\n
question of no fault liability under Section 140 of the<\/p>\n
Act. In our considered opinion a married daughter and a<\/p>\n
married  son who are not dependent on the deceased  are <\/p>\n
also  entitled  to compensation for loss  of  love  and<\/p>\n
affection.   We award a sum of Rs.5,000\/- each  towards<\/p>\n
loss  of love and affection to the appellants\/claimants<\/p>\n
No.2  to  4.   In  this  manner, we  assess  the  total<\/p>\n
compensation as under:\n<\/p>\n
   a)  Loss of dependency            :  Rs.4,80,000\n                                        \/-\n   b)  Loss of estate           :       Rs.\n                                        25,000\/-\n   c)  Loss  of  consortium (as awarded\n       by         the         M.A.C.T.) Rs.\n       :                                15,000\/-\n\n   d)  Loss  of  love and affection  at\n       the  rate of Rs.5,000\/- each  to Rs.\n<\/pre>\n
       the appellants\/claimants No.2 to 15,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
       4    :\n   e)  Conveyance     and     treatment Rs.\n<\/pre>\n
       expenses  incurred by the  widow 20,000\/-
\n       (as awarded by M.A.C.T.) :\n<\/p>\n
   f)  Funeral expenses              :  Rs.\n                                        5,000\/-\n                           Total     :  ===========\n                                        Rs.5,60,000\n                                        \/-\n                                        -----------\n                                        --------\n\n<\/pre>\n
12.   For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed.<\/p>\n
The  award  passed  by  the M.A.C.T.  is  modified  and<\/p>\n
compensation  of  Rs.5,60,000\/-  is  awarded   to   the<\/p>\n
appellants\/claimants.   After  adjusting   the   amount<\/p>\n
already paid, the respondent\/insurer shall deposit  the<\/p>\n
remaining  compensation with the  M.A.C.T.  within  two<\/p>\n
months from today, failing which, the Insurance Company<\/p>\n
shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12%<\/p>\n
per   annum   from   the  date  of   application   till<\/p>\n
realization.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Acting Chief Justice                         Judge\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court 4 Neeti Jain vs 3 National Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No 135 of 1997 1 Smt Nirmala Singhvi 2 Netin 3 Ku Neerja 4 Neeti jain …Petitioners VERSUS 1 Govardhan Dhruv 2 Shashikant Attwani 3 National Insurance Co Ltd …Respondents […]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n4 Neeti Jain vs 3 National Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2007 - 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\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"4 Neeti Jain vs 3 National Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-07T13:58:16+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"4 Neeti Jain vs 3 National Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-07T13:58:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2083,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007\",\"name\":\"4 Neeti Jain vs 3 National Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-07T13:58:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"4 Neeti Jain vs 3 National Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 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":"4 Neeti Jain vs 3 National Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2007 - 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\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"4 Neeti Jain vs 3 National Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-07T13:58:16+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"4 Neeti Jain vs 3 National Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-07T13:58:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007"},"wordCount":2083,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007","name":"4 Neeti Jain vs 3 National Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-07T13:58:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-neeti-jain-vs-3-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-30-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"4 Neeti Jain vs 3 National Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 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\/130248","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=130248"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130248\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}