{"id":130359,"date":"2008-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008"},"modified":"2016-12-03T16:10:19","modified_gmt":"2016-12-03T10:40:19","slug":"ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S New India Assurance Company … vs Sabharathnam @ Sabha Rathinam on 11 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S New India Assurance Company … vs Sabharathnam @ Sabha Rathinam on 11 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 30059 of 2008(C)\n\n\n1. M\/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SABHARATHNAM @ SABHA RATHINAM,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. P.S. THAHA, SALIM MANZIL, MUTTADA P.O.,\n\n3. BASHEER S.M., S\/O SAYED MOHAMMED,\n\n4. THE PERMENANT LOK ADALATH FOR PUBLIC\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.KKM.SHERIF\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.G.SUDHEER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI\n\n Dated :11\/11\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                                                          C.R.\n                           V. GIRI, J.<\/a>\n                   -------------------------------\n               WP(C).NO. 30059 & 30067 of 2008\n                  ---------------------------------\n        Dated this the 11th      day of November, 2008.\n\n                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     The New India Assurance Company challenges the awards<\/p>\n
passed by the Permanent Lok Adalath for Public Utility Services<\/p>\n
essentially on the ground that the said body had acted without<\/p>\n
jurisdiction in proceeding to decide a claim petition filed by the<\/p>\n
injured in a motor accident case, for compensation.      Since the<\/p>\n
contentions raised in these two writ petitions are common, they<\/p>\n
have been heard together and are being disposed of by this<\/p>\n
common judgment. I will refer to WPC.No.30059\/2008, taken as<\/p>\n
the leading case.\n<\/p>\n
     2.     The first respondent met with an accident on<\/p>\n
26.11.2005 when he was walking along the road and a car<\/p>\n
owned by the second respondent and driven by the third<\/p>\n
respondent hit him. He sustained serious injuries and he claimed<\/p>\n
compensation     to  the   tune    of   Rs.6    lakhs.   He  filed<\/p>\n
OP.No.465\/2007 before the 4th respondent which is the<\/p>\n
WPC. 30059 and 30067 of \/2008             2<\/span><\/p>\n
Permanent Lok Adalath for Public Utility Services. On receipt of<\/p>\n
summons from the            Permanent Lok Adalath the petitioner<\/p>\n
entered appearance and disputed the maintainability of the<\/p>\n
petition. It was contended that the Permanent Lok Adalath<\/p>\n
has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter under section 22C<\/p>\n
(8) read with section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act<\/p>\n
1987, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).      The claimant and<\/p>\n
the respondents were not able to come to a settlement.<\/p>\n
Thereupon the Permanent Lok Adalath proceeded to adjudicate<\/p>\n
the dispute and by Ext.P3 the claimant was permitted to realise<\/p>\n
an amount of Rs.52,000\/- from the petitioner, the third<\/p>\n
respondent before the          Permanent Lok Adalath with 9%<\/p>\n
interest from the date of petition till realisation. This has been<\/p>\n
challenged in this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the first respondent.           The petitioner<\/p>\n
contends that the Permanent Lok Adalath is established under<\/p>\n
section 22B of the Act and exercises jurisdiction in respect of<\/p>\n
one or more Public Utility Services.      It does not exercise a<\/p>\n
general jurisdiction and therefore it does have the powers to<\/p>\n
WPC. 30059 and 30067 of \/2008            3<\/span><\/p>\n
adjudicate any dispute unless the dispute is in respect of one or<\/p>\n
more public utility services.    ‘Public utility service’ is defined<\/p>\n
under section 22 A(b) of the Act and the claim made by the<\/p>\n
injured or legal representatives of the deceased person, in a<\/p>\n
petition claiming compensation for injuries suffered in a motor<\/p>\n
accident, will not be a dispute touching upon the Insurance<\/p>\n
service as defined under section 22 A(b) of the Act.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the         Permanent Lok Adalath was bereft of<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to consider Ext.P1 or     to pass an award in the<\/p>\n
nature of Ext.P3, apparently on the premise that it is entitled to<\/p>\n
adjudicate a claim petition for compensation, like a Motor<\/p>\n
Accidents Claims Tribunal.        In other words, the challenge<\/p>\n
against the award Ext.P3 is on the ground that it is bereft of<\/p>\n
jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
      4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the<\/p>\n
Motor Vehicles Act inter alia provides for compulsory insurance<\/p>\n
for any motor vehicle and consequently the claim by an injured<\/p>\n
in a motor accident against the owner or driver of the vehicle<\/p>\n
would also be a claim against the insurer and the dispute raised<\/p>\n
in that behalf would charactorise itself as a dispute touching<\/p>\n
WPC. 30059 and 30067 of \/2008            4<\/span><\/p>\n
upon the insurance service. He therefore contends that<\/p>\n
Permanent Lok Adalath would have jurisdiction to decide a<\/p>\n
claim petition filed by the injured in a motor accident case.<\/p>\n
Alternatively, he submits, that such jurisdiction must be<\/p>\n
vouchsafed in favour of the Permanent Lok Adalath atleast in<\/p>\n
cases where the insurance company does not deny the<\/p>\n
existence of a valid insurance coverage of the vehicle       in<\/p>\n
question, which was involved in the accident. I find that the<\/p>\n
question raised in this regard is not traversed by any judgment<\/p>\n
of the Supreme Court or this court.           Therefore, I have<\/p>\n
anxiously considered the issue.\n<\/p>\n
     5.     Chapter VI-A of the Act was substituted by<\/p>\n
amendment of the Legal Services Authorities Act brought about<\/p>\n
in the year 2002.        Section 22A (a) defines Permanent Lok<\/p>\n
Adalath as one established under sub section (1) of section<\/p>\n
22B.   Section 22A (b) defines the Public Utility Services as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Public Utility Services” means any (i)<\/p>\n
        transport service for the carriage of<\/p>\n
        passengers or goods by air, road or water;<\/p>\n
WPC. 30059 and 30067 of \/2008             5<\/span><\/p>\n
        or (ii) postal, telegraph or telephone<\/p>\n
        service or (iii) supply of power, light or<\/p>\n
        water to the public by any establishment<\/p>\n
        or (iv) system of public conservancy or<\/p>\n
        sanitation (v) service in hospital or<\/p>\n
        dispensary (vi) insurance service.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6. Section 22B provides for the establishment of a<\/p>\n
Permanent Lok Adalath.        Section 22B (1) reads as follows:<\/p>\n
        “22B(1)           Notwithstanding       anything<\/p>\n
        contained in section 19, the Central<\/p>\n
        Authority or as the case may be, every<\/p>\n
        State Authority shall, by notification,<\/p>\n
        establish Permanent Lok Adalats at such<\/p>\n
        places and for exercising such jurisdiction<\/p>\n
        in respect of one or more public utility<\/p>\n
        services and for such areas as may be<\/p>\n
        specified in the notification.”\n<\/p>\n
     7.    Section 22C provides for cognizance of cases by<\/p>\n
Permanent Lok Adalath. Section 22C provides that Permanent<\/p>\n
Lok Adalath should permanently settle the points in dispute<\/p>\n
between the parties and try to effect conciliation between<\/p>\n
them. But a distinguishing feature in so far as the powers of<\/p>\n
WPC. 30059 and 30067 of \/2008            6<\/span><\/p>\n
the Permanent Lok Adalath is concerned is what flows out of<\/p>\n
section 22C(8) and the same reads as follows:-<\/p>\n
         “22D(8) Where the parties fail to reach<\/p>\n
         at an agreement under sub section (7),<\/p>\n
         the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the<\/p>\n
         dispute does not relate to any offence,<\/p>\n
         decide the dispute.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8. In effect therefore where the parties fail to arrive at a<\/p>\n
settlement, Permanent Lok Adalath is not rendered helpless<\/p>\n
but is given the power to proceed to adjudicate the dispute as<\/p>\n
such, subject to the condition that the dispute is not related to<\/p>\n
any offence.      A Lok Adalath constituted under Chapter VI<\/p>\n
derives its jurisdiction to proceed to settle certain disputes only<\/p>\n
when the parties agree for such settlement.        In other words,<\/p>\n
power of adjudication, dehors any submission made in this<\/p>\n
behalf by the parties to the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalath, is<\/p>\n
not contemplated in so far as the Lok Adalaths constituted<\/p>\n
under Chapter VI of the Act are concerned.       But a permanent<\/p>\n
Lok Adalath is competent to decide contentious issues as well.<\/p>\n
I also refer to the fact that section 22E of the Act provides that<\/p>\n
an award passed by the        Permanent Lok Adalath either on<\/p>\n
WPC. 30059 and 30067 of \/2008              7<\/span><\/p>\n
merit or in terms of a settlement agreement shall be final and<\/p>\n
binding on all the parties thereto and        on persons claiming<\/p>\n
under them. The award is deemed to be a decree of a civil<\/p>\n
court and therefore can be executed in that behalf.            (see<\/p>\n
section 22E (3) and 5).       I have referred to the above features<\/p>\n
to understand the powers of adjudication therefore available to<\/p>\n
a Permanent Lok Adalath. Obviously this cannot be inferred.<\/p>\n
But a Lok Adalath and a permanent Lok Adalath would only be<\/p>\n
vouchsafed with powers strictly in consonance with the<\/p>\n
statutory powers providing for their establishment and laid<\/p>\n
down in that behalf.        It cannot be gainsaid that Permanent<\/p>\n
Lok Adalaths are entitled to only deal with such disputes which<\/p>\n
touch upon “public utility services”. The term is defined under<\/p>\n
section 22A (b) of the Act.        What is really considered in the<\/p>\n
present case is the scope of the provision “public utility<\/p>\n
services” in so far as it mentions the term “insurance service”.<\/p>\n
It would have been ideal if the legislature had defined<\/p>\n
insurance service for the purpose of ascertaining the limits of<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalath in that regard. But<\/p>\n
it has not been done and therefore it would be necessary to<\/p>\n
WPC. 30059 and 30067 of \/2008           8<\/span><\/p>\n
refer to similar terms as they are defined in statutes covering<\/p>\n
the same field.       The Insurance Act 1938 does not define an<\/p>\n
insurance service but significantly it defines Life Insurance<\/p>\n
business, Marine Insurance business,         General insurance<\/p>\n
business and Fire insurance business.    Life Insurance business<\/p>\n
is defined under section 2(11) of the Insurance Act. The same<\/p>\n
reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
         “2(11). Life Insurance business means<\/p>\n
         the business of effecting contracts of<\/p>\n
         insurance upon human life, including<\/p>\n
         any contract whereby the payment of<\/p>\n
         money is assured on death (except<\/p>\n
         death       by     accident only)    or   the<\/p>\n
         happening           of   any    contingency<\/p>\n
         dependent on human life, and any<\/p>\n
         contract which is subject to payment of<\/p>\n
         premiums for a term dependent on<\/p>\n
         human life and shall be deemed to<\/p>\n
         include –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (a) the granting of disability and double<\/p>\n
         or triple indemnity accident benefits, if<\/p>\n
         so provided in the contract of insurance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
         (b) the granting of annuities upon<\/p>\n
         human life and<\/p>\n
WPC. 30059 and 30067 of \/2008            9<\/span><\/p>\n
         )     the     granting    of   superannuation<\/p>\n
         allowances and annuities payable out of<\/p>\n
         any fund applicable solely to the relief<\/p>\n
         and maintenance of persons engaged or<\/p>\n
         who      have       been   engaged     in  any<\/p>\n
         particular          profession,   trade     or<\/p>\n
         employment or of the dependents of<\/p>\n
         such persons. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9. What is therefore indicated by Life Insurance Business<\/p>\n
as defined is the business of effecting contracts of insurance<\/p>\n
upon human life.         It can also include any contract which<\/p>\n
assures the payment of money on death or other contingencies<\/p>\n
as well.      The Insurance would therefore depend upon a<\/p>\n
bilateral agreement between the insurer and the insured.<\/p>\n
Once there is a contract of insurance, the insurance company<\/p>\n
may be called upon to render insurance service.         A service<\/p>\n
rendered by an insurer, as part of it’s activities would be called<\/p>\n
as insurance service. The term insurance service as defined<\/p>\n
under section 22 A(b) (vi) of the Legal Services Authorities Act<\/p>\n
could be judged in the said context.        Insurance Service is<\/p>\n
WPC. 30059 and 30067 of \/2008          10<\/span><\/p>\n
treated as a part of the public utility service and therefore<\/p>\n
what is contemplated by section 22 A(b)(vi) read with section<\/p>\n
22 B in so far as the public utility service touching upon the<\/p>\n
insurance business is concerned, is a dispute arising out of the<\/p>\n
insurance business carried on by the insurance company.<\/p>\n
There are several disputes which arise between the insured and<\/p>\n
the insurer, for example dispute arising on account of<\/p>\n
deficiency in service rendered by the insurance company.<\/p>\n
Obviously such dispute would fall within the purview of section<\/p>\n
22 A (b)(vi) read with section 22B and would therefore be<\/p>\n
comprehended by the powers of the Permanent Lok Adalath.<\/p>\n
     10. The crucial question is whether the claim petition filed<\/p>\n
by the first respondent would also be a claim within the ambit<\/p>\n
of “insurance service”. The term is not defined under the Legal<\/p>\n
Services Authorities Act. A dispute raised by an injured or for<\/p>\n
that matter a legal heir of deceased person claiming<\/p>\n
compensation arising out of a motor accident cannot be<\/p>\n
construed as one essentially touching upon the insurance<\/p>\n
service rendered by the insurance company.        One    has to<\/p>\n
understand the legislative background relating to establishment<\/p>\n
WPC. 30059 and 30067 of \/2008             11<\/span><\/p>\n
of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals as specialised Tribunals to<\/p>\n
deal with claims arising out of motor accidents.         Therefore,<\/p>\n
prior to the establishment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunals,<\/p>\n
the claim for compensation was dealt with by courts of general<\/p>\n
jurisdiction.    On establishment of MACTs, the jurisdiction<\/p>\n
exercised by the civil courts      came to be exercised by the<\/p>\n
specialised Tribunal. The MACTs are therefore established as<\/p>\n
specialised Tribunals        under the provisions of the Motor<\/p>\n
Vehicles Act.        That claims similar to those filed by the first<\/p>\n
respondent herein are obviously cognizable by the MACT<\/p>\n
established under the Motor Vehicles Act is not disputed by any<\/p>\n
party concerned. A claim by the injured in a motor accident is<\/p>\n
only a claim for compensation filed by the injured who has<\/p>\n
suffered from a tortious act of another person. A tortious act<\/p>\n
gives rise to claim for damages, by a person who has suffered<\/p>\n
from the act.     Inspite of the fact that the claim is adjudicated<\/p>\n
by Tribunals, the essence of a claim petition filed under section<\/p>\n
166 or 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is nothing but a claim<\/p>\n
for compensation filed by a person who has suffered at the<\/p>\n
hands     of a tortfeasor.         Therefore what is to be first<\/p>\n
WPC. 30059 and 30067 of \/2008          12<\/span><\/p>\n
adjudicated in such a claim petition under section 166 of the<\/p>\n
Motor Vehicles Act is whether the vehicle in question was<\/p>\n
driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner. Whether<\/p>\n
the claimant was a joint tortfeasor and whether there was<\/p>\n
composite negligence are also matters which will come up for<\/p>\n
consideration. If the court finds that the accident occurred on<\/p>\n
account of the negligence of the driver of the vehicle, then the<\/p>\n
claimant is entitled to compensation.    But this is a matter for<\/p>\n
adjudication by a court on an aspect which essentially involves<\/p>\n
a claim by an injured person against a tortfeasor and that, in<\/p>\n
my view is not comprehended by the term “insurance service”<\/p>\n
as occurring in section 22      A(b)(vi) of the Legal Services<\/p>\n
Authorities Act. In other words, a dispute which comes into<\/p>\n
existence from a claim petition filed by the injured in a motor<\/p>\n
accident is not a dispute touching upon “insurance service” for<\/p>\n
the purpose of chapter VI-B of the Legal Services Authorities<\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
      11.   What would therefore be a dispute touching upon<\/p>\n
insurance service for the purpose of the Act. In my view, they<\/p>\n
would essentially comprehend disputes arising between the<\/p>\n
WPC. 30059 and 30067 of \/2008              13<\/span><\/p>\n
insurer and the insured.           That would include cases of<\/p>\n
repudiation by the insurer and claims of inadequacy of service<\/p>\n
rendered by      the insurer.      Learned counsel for the      first<\/p>\n
respondent submits that it may not be safe to restrict cases of<\/p>\n
disputes relating to insurance service as coming under the<\/p>\n
Legal Services Authorities Act to cases where disputes arise<\/p>\n
under the contract of insurance.          He   refers to the Public<\/p>\n
Liability Insurance Act 1991 which provides for public liability<\/p>\n
insurance for the purpose of providing immediate relief to the<\/p>\n
persons affected by accidents occurring while handling any<\/p>\n
hazardous substance and for matters connected therewith or<\/p>\n
incidental thereto.      It provides for an obligation on the part of<\/p>\n
the industrial undertaking to give such reliefs as is specified in<\/p>\n
the schedule to the Act whenever there occurs death or injury<\/p>\n
to any person or damage to any property resulting from an<\/p>\n
accident.   Section 4 of the said Act obliges the owner to take<\/p>\n
out a policy. Section 6 of the Act provides for an application<\/p>\n
for claim for relief to be made to the Collector and an award of<\/p>\n
relief by the Collector in terms of section 7. The Collector is<\/p>\n
vouchsafed the powers of the civil court in terms of section 5<\/p>\n
WPC. 30059 and 30067 of \/2008             14<\/span><\/p>\n
of the Act.      But a claimant for compensation arising from a<\/p>\n
motor vehicle accident under the Motor Vehicles Act does not<\/p>\n
enjoy a similar privilege.    Even the facility for a fixed amount<\/p>\n
relating to “No fault liability” is only by way of an interim relief<\/p>\n
in a regularly instituted petition for compensation, which if<\/p>\n
contested, would obviously require proof of negligence by the<\/p>\n
tortfeasor as the basis for an award.       Thus the situation in<\/p>\n
relation to claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles<\/p>\n
Act stands on a different footing and the crucial distinction is<\/p>\n
evident from section 3(2) of the Public Liability Insurance Act<\/p>\n
1991 which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “3(2) In any claim for relief under sub<\/p>\n
           section (1) hereinafter referred to in<\/p>\n
           this Act as claim for relief), the<\/p>\n
           claimant shall not be required to plead<\/p>\n
           and establish that the death, injury or<\/p>\n
           damage in respect of which the claim<\/p>\n
           has been made was due to any<\/p>\n
           wrongful act, neglect or default of any<\/p>\n
           person. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      12.      The discussion made above leads me to the<\/p>\n
WPC. 30059 and 30067 of \/2008             15<\/span><\/p>\n
conclusion that a Permanent Lok Adalath would be bereft of<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to decide a claim petition filed by a claimant arising<\/p>\n
out of a motor accident.      As the statutory position currently<\/p>\n
obtains only the Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles<\/p>\n
Act have jurisdiction to decide such cases. The Permanent Lok<\/p>\n
Adalath was devoid of jurisdiction to entertain             Ext.P1<\/p>\n
complaint or pass Ext.P3 order.\n<\/p>\n
     13. For all these reasons, I find the petitioner is entitled<\/p>\n
to succeed. The writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 order passed<\/p>\n
by the Permanent Lok Adalath is set aside. On a query made<\/p>\n
by me, the learned counsel for the petitioner the insurance<\/p>\n
company submits that they have approached this court<\/p>\n
essentially for a decision on the question of jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
Permanent Lok Adalath and that in the circumstances the<\/p>\n
company has decided to pay the compensation as awarded by<\/p>\n
the Permanent Lok Adalath as per Ext.P3. This, he undertakes<\/p>\n
to do so within a period of two months from today.<\/p>\n
                                              V. GIRI, JUDGE.<\/p>\n
\n\nPmn\/\n\nWPC. 30059 and 30067 of \/2008    16\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S New India Assurance Company … vs Sabharathnam @ Sabha Rathinam on 11 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 30059 of 2008(C) 1. M\/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., … Petitioner Vs 1. SABHARATHNAM @ SABHA RATHINAM, … Respondent 2. P.S. THAHA, SALIM MANZIL, MUTTADA P.O., 3. […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130359","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S New India Assurance Company ... vs Sabharathnam @ Sabha Rathinam on 11 November, 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\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S New India Assurance Company ... vs Sabharathnam @ Sabha Rathinam on 11 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-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=\"2008-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-03T10:40:19+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S New India Assurance Company … vs Sabharathnam @ Sabha Rathinam on 11 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-03T10:40:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2772,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S New India Assurance Company ... vs Sabharathnam @ Sabha Rathinam on 11 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-03T10:40:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S New India Assurance Company … vs Sabharathnam @ Sabha Rathinam on 11 November, 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":"M\/S New India Assurance Company ... vs Sabharathnam @ Sabha Rathinam on 11 November, 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\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S New India Assurance Company ... vs Sabharathnam @ Sabha Rathinam on 11 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-03T10:40:19+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S New India Assurance Company … vs Sabharathnam @ Sabha Rathinam on 11 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-03T10:40:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008"},"wordCount":2772,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008","name":"M\/S New India Assurance Company ... vs Sabharathnam @ Sabha Rathinam on 11 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-03T10:40:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-new-india-assurance-company-vs-sabharathnam-sabha-rathinam-on-11-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S New India Assurance Company … vs Sabharathnam @ Sabha Rathinam on 11 November, 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\/130359","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=130359"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130359\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130359"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130359"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130359"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}