{"id":156557,"date":"2009-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009"},"modified":"2015-06-27T11:05:28","modified_gmt":"2015-06-27T05:35:28","slug":"united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & Ors. on 16 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & Ors. on 16 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V.B.Gupta<\/div>\n
*      HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI\n\n                    FAO. No.346\/2007\n\n%           Judgment reserved on:7th September, 2009\n\n            Judgment delivered on:16th September, 2009\n\nUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd.\nRegional Office-I,\nKanchanjunga Building,\n8th Floor,\n18, Barakhamba Road,\nNew Delhi-110 001.                       ....Appellant.\n\n                      Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Adv.\n\n                  Versus\n\n1. Smt. Dariyao Kanwar\n   W\/o. Late Sumer Singh\n\n2. Bipan Kanwar\n   D\/o. Late Sumer Singh\n\n3. Moti Singh\n   S\/o. Late Sumer Singh\n\n4. Munni Kanwar\n   D\/o. Late Sumer Singh\n\n5. Lal Singh\n   S\/o. Late Sumer Singh\n\n    All residents of\n    H.No. 11, Rajput Mohalla,\n    Village & P.O. Girdharpura,\n    Tehsil Udaipurwti,\n    Distt. Jhunjhuna (Rajasthan)\n\n\n\n\nFAO No.346\/2007                          Page 1 of 12\n 6. Sh. Kuldeep Bhatia\n   11, Guru Nanak Auto Market,\n   Punjabi Bagh,\n   New Delhi.                            ..Respondents.\n                    Through: Nemo.\n\nCoram:\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may\n   be allowed to see the judgment?                       Yes\n\n2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                    Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported\n   in the Digest?                                        Yes\n\nV.B.Gupta, J.\n<\/pre>\n
      United India Insurance Company-appellant, has<\/p>\n
filed this appeal against order dated 22nd March, 2007<\/p>\n
of Commissioner Workmen Compensation (for short as<\/p>\n
\u201eCommissioner\u201f). Vide impugned order, Commissioner<\/p>\n
passed an award for Rs. 3,26,140\/- along with interest<\/p>\n
@ 12% p.a., w.e.f. 15th September, 2003 till realization,<\/p>\n
in favour of respondents\/claimants.<\/p>\n
2.    Brief facts are that, deceased-Sumer Singh was<\/p>\n
employed as driver with respondent No.6.            On 15th<\/p>\n
September, 2003, deceased was on his professional<\/p>\n
FAO No.346\/2007                           Page 2 of 12<\/span>
\n visit and was driving the vehicle.    When he reached<\/p>\n
Udaipur in Rajasthan, his condition deteriorated due to<\/p>\n
strenuous and continuous driving.       He parked his<\/p>\n
vehicle and thereafter, expired due to failure of his<\/p>\n
bodily organ due to stress and strain of driving. His<\/p>\n
post-mortem was conducted and a case was registered.<\/p>\n
Respondents No.1 to 5 are legal heirs\/claimants of the<\/p>\n
deceased.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    Appellant in its written statement denied that<\/p>\n
deceased was employed as a driver, as no driving<\/p>\n
license or other documentary evidence has been<\/p>\n
placed on record.     It was also denied that any such<\/p>\n
incident as alleged, took place during course of his<\/p>\n
employment.       As per claimants\u201f case, deceased died<\/p>\n
due to failure of bodily organ, while post mortem<\/p>\n
report states that all organs of deceased were healthy<\/p>\n
at that time. Thus, petition is not maintainable.<\/p>\n
4.    Notice was issued to respondents No.1 to 5, who<\/p>\n
were duly served for 26th September, 2008.               Since,<\/p>\n
FAO No.346\/2007                           Page 3 of 12<\/span>
\n there was no appearance on their behalf, appeal was<\/p>\n
admitted for hearing.       On 7th September, 2009, none<\/p>\n
appeared for them.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.    Arguments advanced by learned counsel for<\/p>\n
appellant have been heard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.    It is contended by learned counsel for appellant<\/p>\n
that claim of respondents, under Section 3 of Workmen<\/p>\n
Compensation      Act   (for    short   as    \u201eAct\u201f),     is   not<\/p>\n
maintainable, since death of deceased was not caused<\/p>\n
by accident, during the course of employment.<\/p>\n
7.    Another submission is that there is no medical<\/p>\n
evidence on record to show that death occurred due to<\/p>\n
heart attack or organ failure was the consequence of<\/p>\n
mental strain or stress, due to employment as alleged.<\/p>\n
8.    Learned     counsel      in   support     referred        to<\/p>\n
Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar<\/p>\n
Maruti Garvali & Anr, IV<\/a> (2006) ACC 769 (SC), in<\/p>\n
which Supreme Court observed;\n<\/p>\n
FAO No.346\/2007                                Page 4 of 12<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
               “Unless evidence is brought on
\n              record to elaborate that the death by
\n              way of cardiac arrest has occurred
\n              because of stress or strain, the
\n              Commissioner      would    not   have
\n              jurisdiction to grant damages. In
\n              other words, the claimant was
\n              bound to prove jurisdictional fact
\n              before the Commissioner. Unless
\n              such jurisdictional facts are found,
\n              the Commissioner will have no
\n              jurisdiction to pass an order. It is
\n              now well-settled that for arriving at
\n              a finding of a jurisdictional fact,
\n              reference to any precedent would
\n              not be helpful as a little deviation
\n              from the fact of a decided case or
\n              an additional fact may make a lot
\n              of difference by arriving at a correct
\n              conclusion. For the said purpose,
\n              the statutory authority is required
\n              to pose unto himself the right
\n              question.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.    Widow of deceased, in her statement stated that<\/p>\n
deceased was going in his truck from Delhi to Baroda.<\/p>\n
On way, his condition deteriorated and he died due to<\/p>\n
failure of his bodily organ, due to stress and strain of<\/p>\n
continuous driving.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10. There is no evidence on record to show that<\/p>\n
deceased died as a result of organ failure, as alleged<\/p>\n
by claimants.     Post mortem report Exb. AW1\/3, does<\/p>\n
FAO No.346\/2007                             Page 5 of 12<\/span>
\n not show that there was any organ failure. Opinion of<\/p>\n
Doctor who conducted post mortem examination, is as<\/p>\n
under;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “Regarding cause of death will be
\n              given after   receiving  chemical
\n              and histopathological examination
\n              report”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11. This clearly shows that cause of death has not<\/p>\n
been given in post mortem report.        Moreover, Post<\/p>\n
Mortem report states;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “Organ generation ; external and
\n              internal-Healthy”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12. Under such circumstances, it cannot simply be<\/p>\n
assumed that death occurred due to stress and strain,<\/p>\n
of continuous driving, which resulted in organ failure.<\/p>\n
There has to be sufficient proof to support that claim.<\/p>\n
13. Section 3 (1) of the Act, which is relevant for the<\/p>\n
purpose of this case reads as follows;<\/p>\n
              “3. Employer’s   Liability For
\n              Compensation. – (1) If personal<\/p>\n
FAO No.346\/2007                           Page 6 of 12<\/span>
\n               injury is caused to a workman by
\n              accident arising out of and in the
\n              course of his employment, his
\n              employer shall be liable to pay
\n              compensation in accordance with
\n              the provisions of this Chapter:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Provided that the employer shall not
\n              be so liable –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (a) in respect of any injury which
\n              does not result in the total or partial
\n              disablement of the workmen for a
\n              period exceeding [three] days;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (b) in respect of any [injury], not
\n              resulting in death, [or permanent
\n              total disablement], caused by] an
\n              accident      which   is    directly
\n              attributable to –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (i) the workman having been at the
\n              time thereof under the influence of
\n              drink or drugs, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              (ii) the willful disobedience of the
\n              workman to an order expressly
\n              given, or to a rule expressly framed,
\n              for the purpose of securing the
\n              safety of workmen, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              (iii) the willful removal or discharged
\n              by the workman of any safety guard
\n              or other device which he knew to
\n              have been provided for the purpose
\n              of securing the safety of workmen.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14. As per this Section, it has to be established that<\/p>\n
there was some casual connection between the death<\/p>\n
FAO No.346\/2007                              Page 7 of 12<\/span>
\n of workman and his employment. If, workman dies as<\/p>\n
a result of disease from which he was suffering or<\/p>\n
while suffering from a particular disease, he dies of<\/p>\n
that   disease    as   a   result   of   wear   and      tear   of<\/p>\n
employment, no liability would be fixed upon employer.<\/p>\n
15. In Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. (P) Ltd. v.<\/p>\n
Ibrahim Mahammad, AIR<\/a> 1970 SC 1906, Supreme<\/p>\n
Court held;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “5. To come within the Act the injury
\n              by accident must arise both out of
\n              and in the course of employment.
\n              The “words in the course of the
\n              employment” mean “in the course of
\n              the work which the workman is
\n              employed to do and which is
\n              incidental to it”. The words “arising
\n              out of employment” are understood
\n              to mean that during the course of
\n              the employment, injury has resulted
\n              from some risk incidental to the
\n              duties of the service, which, unless
\n              engaged in the duty owing to the
\n              master, it is reasonable to believe
\n              the workman would not otherwise
\n              have suffered. In other words, there
\n              must be a causal relationship
\n              between the accident and the
\n              employment. The expression “arising
\n              out of employment” is again not
\n              confined to the mere nature of the<\/p>\n
FAO No.346\/2007                                 Page 8 of 12<\/span>
\n               employment. The expression applies
\n              to employment as such to its nature,
\n              its conditions, its obligations and its
\n              incidents. If by reason of any of
\n              those factors the workman is
\n              brought within the zone of special
\n              danger the injury would be one
\n              which arises out of employment. To
\n              put it differently if the accident had
\n              occurred on account of a risk which
\n              is an incident of the employment, the
\n              claim     for   compensation      must
\n              succeed, unless of course the
\n              workman has exposed himself to an
\n              added peril by his own imprudent
\n              act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16. Similarly, in The Municipal Corporation v.<\/p>\n
Smt.     Sulochanabai      Sadashiv     Joil,      (1979)      81<\/p>\n
BOMLR 82, it was observed;\n<\/p>\n
              “Three factors must be established
\n              to attract the liability under Section
\n              3 of the Act. Firstly, there must be
\n              an injury. Secondly, it should be
\n              caused in an accident. Thirdly, it
\n              should be caused in the course of
\n              the employment.        Mere death in
\n              ordinary course by some bodily
\n              ailment or even in the course of
\n              employment cannot attract liability
\n              of employer under Section 3. The
\n              words \u201einjury\u201f and \u201eaccident\u201f in
\n              Section 3 of the Act imply the
\n              existence of some external factor to
\n              cause death apart from internal
\n              ailment of the body.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
FAO No.346\/2007                                 Page 9 of 12<\/span><\/p>\n
 17. In Sakinabibi and Anr. vs. Gujarat State Road<\/p>\n
Transport Corporation, 1992 ACJ 603, Gujarat High<\/p>\n
Court held;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “In order to earn an award for
\n              compensation under Section 3 of the
\n              Act, it is necessary to prove that the
\n              personal injury or the resultant
\n              death (as the case may be) is caused
\n              to a workman by accident arising out
\n              of and in the course of his
\n              employment with the employer. The
\n              words       “out   of    employment”
\n              emphasise a casual connection
\n              between the employment and the
\n              accidental injury. Though the word
\n              “accident” occurred in Section 3 of
\n              the Act, is not defined in the Act, the
\n              said expression has been subjected
\n              to number of judicial decisions, as a
\n              result of which, it has come to
\n              acquire a settled meaning. It is a
\n              well-settled position of law that
\n              under Section 3 of the Act, it must
\n              be shown that there was a proximate
\n              cause and nexus between the
\n              personal injury or the accident and
\n              the work or employment. Therefore,
\n              it is incumbent upon the applicants
\n              to prove that there was a causal
\n              relationship between the injuries
\n              and the work in question. Section 3<\/p>\n
FAO No.346\/2007                             Page 10 of 12<\/span>
\n               of the Act clearly prescribes that the
\n              personal injury or the accident must
\n              be proved to have arisen out of and
\n              in the course of employment. If it is
\n              successfully proved or shown that
\n              the injury sustained by the workman
\n              had arisen out of and in the course
\n              of   his   employment,      then the
\n              workman or the dependent of the
\n              deceased     workman       would    be
\n              qualified     and      eligible    for
\n              compensation under Section 3 of the
\n              Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
18. In the present case, Commissioner did not go into<\/p>\n
jurisdictional facts nor arrived at any finding based on<\/p>\n
any legal evidence, as there is no casual relationship<\/p>\n
between the injuries and the work in question.<\/p>\n
19. The impugned order under these circumstances<\/p>\n
cannot be sustained.        The same is set aside and<\/p>\n
present appeal stands allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20. At the time of admission of appeal, it was ordered<\/p>\n
that attached amount shall not be disbursed to the<\/p>\n
respondents.      As appeal has been allowed, attached<\/p>\n
FAO No.346\/2007                             Page 11 of 12<\/span>
\n amount be released to appellant, only after expiry of<\/p>\n
period of limitation for filing appeal.<\/p>\n
21. Parties shall bear their own costs.<\/p>\n
22. Trial court record be sent back.\n<\/p>\n
16th September, 2009                 V.B.GUPTA, J.\n<\/p>\n
rb<\/p>\n
FAO No.346\/2007                           Page 12 of 12<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & Ors. on 16 September, 2009 Author: V.B.Gupta * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI FAO. No.346\/2007 % Judgment reserved on:7th September, 2009 Judgment delivered on:16th September, 2009 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office-I, Kanchanjunga Building, 8th Floor, 18, Barakhamba Road, […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-156557","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & Ors. on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & Ors. on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-27T05:35:28+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & Ors. on 16 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-27T05:35:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1678,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009\",\"name\":\"United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & Ors. on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-27T05:35:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & Ors. on 16 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & Ors. on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & Ors. on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-27T05:35:28+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & Ors. on 16 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-27T05:35:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009"},"wordCount":1678,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009","name":"United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & Ors. on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-27T05:35:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-dariyao-kanwar-ors-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & Ors. on 16 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156557","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=156557"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156557\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=156557"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=156557"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=156557"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}