{"id":162257,"date":"2006-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006"},"modified":"2019-04-06T02:17:06","modified_gmt":"2019-04-05T20:47:06","slug":"national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Ayyappan on 8 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Ayyappan on 8 February, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 08\/02\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGA PERUMAL ADITYAN\n\n\nC.M.A.Nos.932 of 2005\nC.M.A.Nos.933 to 936 of 2005\nand\nC.R.P.No.879 of 2005\n\n\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nrepresented by its Branch Manager,\nBranch Office-I,\nNo.6, West Masi Street,\nMadurai.\t\t\t     ...\tAppellant\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPetitioner\n\nin all C.M.As and C.R.P\/2nd respondent in    M.C.O.P.Nos.885\/99,981\/99,2835\/02,<\/pre>\n
886\/99,489\/99 and 490\/99.\n<\/p>\n
Vs<\/p>\n
1.M.Ayyappan\n<\/p>\n
2.C.Chandran\n<\/p>\n
3.M\/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
\n  through its Managing Director,
\n  Unit No.III, Kumbakonam, Karaikudi.    …\tRespondent in
\n\t\t\t\t          \tC.M.A.No.932 of 2005 \t\t\t<\/p>\n
Claimants in M.C.O.P.No.885\/99<\/p>\n
1.M.Shakul Hameedu\n<\/p>\n
2.C.Chandran\n<\/p>\n
3.M\/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
\n  through its Managing Director,
\n  Unit No.III, Kumbakonam, Karaikudi.\t…Respondent in
\n\t\t\t\t          C.M.A.No.933 of 2005
\n \t\t\t      \/ Claimants in M.C.O.P.No.981\/99<\/p>\n
1.Seeralan\n<\/p>\n
2.Savariammal\n<\/p>\n
3.S.Arockiam\n<\/p>\n
4.Selvi\n<\/p>\n
5.S.Packiaraj\n<\/p>\n
6.C.Chandran\n<\/p>\n
7.M\/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
\n  through its Managing Director,
\n  Unit No.III, Kumbakonam, Karaikudi.  …Respondent in
\n\t\t\t\t          C.M.A.No.934 of 2005
\n  \t\t\t     \/ Claimants in M.C.O.P.No.2835\/02<\/p>\n
1.M.Mariammal
\n2.2.C.Chandran\n<\/p>\n
3.M\/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
\n  through its Managing Director,
\n  Unit No.III, Kumbakonam, Karaikudi.    …Respondent in
\n\t\t\t\t          C.M.A.No.935 of 2005
\n  \t\t\t      \/ Claimants in M.C.O.P.No.886\/99<\/p>\n
1.T.Selvarajan\n<\/p>\n
2.C.Chandran\n<\/p>\n
3.M\/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
\n  through its Managing Director,
\n  Unit No.III, Kumbakonam, Karaikudi.    …Respondent in
\n\t\t\t\t          C.M.A.No.936 of 2005
\n \t\t\t      \/ Claimants in M.C.O.P.No.489\/99<\/p>\n
1.T.Selvarajan\n<\/p>\n
2.C.Chandran\n<\/p>\n
3.M\/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
\n  through its Managing Director,
\n  Unit No.III, Kumbakonam, Karaikudi.    …Respondent in
\n\t\t\t\t          C.R.P.No.879 of 2005
\n \t\t\t      \/ Claimants in M.C.O.P.No.490\/99<\/p>\n
Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the
\njudgment and decree dated 02.11.2004 and made in M.C.O.P.Nos.885 of 1999, 981 of
\n1999, 2835 of 2002, 886 of 1999, 489 of 1999 and the Revision Petition filed
\nunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated
\n02.11.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.490 of 1999,  on the file of the Motor Accidents
\nClaims Tribunal – Additional District & Sessions Juge-cum-Fast Track Court
\nNo.III, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellant    \t..\tMr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan\n\n\n^For Respondents  \t..\tMr.C.Godwin\n\n\n\n:COMMON JUDGMENT\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tC.M.A.Nos.932 of 2005, 933 of 2005, 934 of 2005, 935 of 2005, 936 of 2005
\nand C.R.P.No.879 of 2005 have arisen out of the award passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.885
\nof 1999, 981 of 1999, 2835 of 2002, 886 of 1999, 489 of 1999 and 490 of 1999, on
\nthe file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Additional District & Sessions
\nJuge-cum-Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai, dated 02.11.2004.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. In all the above said C.M.As, the National Insurance Company Limited \/
\nthe second respondent is the appellant and in C.R.P.No.879 of 2005, the National
\nInsurance Company is the Revision petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
The short facts of the prosecution case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The claimants in M.C.O.P.Nos.885 of 1999, 886 of 1999, 490 of 1999 and
\n981 of 1999, were travelling in the bus bearing Registration No.TN-63-N-0400,
\nbelonging to the third respondent, from Paramakudi to Madurai on 19.12.1998.
\nThe bus was plying on the Madurai-Rameswaram National Highways Road and when it
\nreached Vellakurichi vilakku, at about 07.15 p.m., it involved in an head on
\ncollusion with the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-59-E-3499, belonging to the
\nfirst respondent.  The accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent
\ndriving of the drivers of both the vehicles, namely, the bus and the lorry.  A
\ncriminal case was registered by Thiruppasethi Police in Crime No.246 of 1998.
\nThe claimants in the above M.C.O.Ps, were travellers in the ill-fated bus,
\nsustained grievous injuries.  The drivers of the first and third respondents
\nwere in the course of their duty at the time of accident and therefore, the
\nowners and insurers were also vicariously liable to pay compensation.
\nM.C.O.P.No.489 of 1999 and 2835 of 2002 are filed by the claimants, claiming
\ncompensation for the death of one, Metylda, in the above said accident.  The
\nparents, brother and sisters of the deceased Metylda have filed M.C.O.P.No.2835
\nof 2002, claiming compensation and the husband of the deceased Metylda was shown
\nas 4th respondent in M.C.O.P.No.2835 of 2002.  The husband of the deceased
\nMetylda has also filed another M.C.O.P.No.489 of 1999, claiming compensation for
\nthe death of his wife Metylda in the accident.  The other claimants in the
\nremaining M.C.O.Ps, were the passengers of the bus on the date of accident, who
\nhad sustained grievous injuries in the accident, claiming compensation.  The
\nfirst respondent in his counter would contend that the occurrence had taken
\nplace due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and not by
\nthe driver of the lorry.  The first respondent in his additional counter has
\ncontended that he had insured his lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-59_E-3499,
\nwith the second respondent and the premium amount was also paid by the first
\nrespondent to the second respondent by way of cheque.  The second respondent in
\nhis counter has contended that the lorry belonging to the first respondent was
\nnot insured with the second respondent on the date of the accident.  There was
\nno insurance coverage and insurable interest and therefore the second respondent
\ncannot be made liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and that the
\nfirst respondent’s lorry was insured with the second respondent only for the
\nperiod between 29.12.1998 and 28.12.1999.  Therefore, the second respondent
\ncannot be held responsible to pay the compensation, since, the accident had
\noccurred on 19.12.1998, on which date the policy was not in force.  The accident
\nhad occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus
\nand not by the driver of the lorry.  The second respondent in his additional
\ncounter, has contended that the lorry belonging to the first respondent was
\ninsured with the second respondent from 29.12.1998 till 28.12.1999 and that the
\nsecond respondent came to know that the first respondent, with the collusion of
\nthe petitioners, did not disclose the previous policy and the payment of premium
\nby way of cheque and that the cheque issued by the first respondent was
\ndishonoured and the policy was cancelled as per rules.  Suppressing the
\ncancellation of the previous policy, the first respondent was managed to get a
\nfresh policy from 29.12.1998 till 28.12.1999.  The previous policy was not
\nexisted since the cheque issued for the premium amount was dishonoured and
\ntherefore, the second respondent can never be held responsible to pay
\ncompensation.  However, in view of the prevailing law, the insurance company may
\nbe directed to pay compensation and then to recover the same from the first
\nrespondent.  The third respondent has filed a counter contending that the
\naccident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
\nof the bus.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Before the learned Tribunal, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined and Exs.P.1
\nto P.30 were marked on the side of the claimants.  On the side of the
\nrespondents, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.9 were marked.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. After going through the oral and documentary evidence available before
\nthe learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has allowed all the M.C.O.Ps,
\nawarding various amount of compensation, taking into consideration the gravity
\nof the injuries sustained by the claimants in the accident, in the injured cases
\nand the plight of the legal representatives of the deceased in the case of
\ndeath.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the accident had
\noccurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry,
\nbearing Registration No.TN-59-E-3499 and the learned Tribunal has further
\ndirected the second respondent \/ National Insurance Company, to pay the award
\namount in all the above said M.C.O.Ps, to the respective claimants and then, to
\nrecover the same from the first respondent, following the dictum in 2001 ACJ 843
\nof the Honourable Supreme Court of India.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Aggrieved by the above directions of the learned Tribunal, directing
\nthe National Insurance Company \/ the second respondent to pay the compensation
\nto all the claimants, the National Insurance Company \/ the second respondent had
\npreferred the appeal in C.M.A.Nos.932 to 936 of 2005 and the revision in
\nC.R.P.No.879 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Now, the substantial questions of law that arose for consideration in
\nthis appeals and revision, are
\n\t(1) Whether the National Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation,
\nwhen there was no insurance policy, in respect of the lorry bearing Registration
\nNo.TN-59-E-3499, was in force on the date of the accident?\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) Whether the award passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.885 of 1999, 981 of 1999, 2835
\nof 2002, 886 of 1999, 489 of 1999 and 490 of 1999 are liable to be set aside for
\nthe reasons stated in the Memorandum of appeal in C.M.A.Nos.932 to 936 of 2005
\nand also in C.R.P.No.879 of 2005?\n<\/p>\n
Point No:1<\/p>\n
\t9. The only contention of the appellant \/ National Insurance Company is
\nthat on the date of the accident, i.e, on 19.12.1998, there was no policy in
\nforce, in respect of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-59-E-3499.  The
\nlearned Counsel would further contend that the period for which the policy was
\nin force was from 29.12.1998 to 28.12.1999 and for the previous policy which
\nstarts from 15.12.1998 to 14.12.1999.  The first respondent had paid the premium
\nby way of cheque, which was bounced and hence, there was actually no policy was
\nin force to indemnify the National Insurance Company to the owner of the lorry
\nnamely, the first respondent.  Ex.R.5 is the insurance policy which shows that
\nthe policy is in force from 15.12.1998 till 14.12.1999.  The accident had
\noccurred on 19.12.1999.  R.W.3, is the Deputy Regional Manager of the second
\nrespondent \/ the appellant, who would depose that the first respondent viz., the
\nowner of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-59-E-3499, had sent a cheque for
\nRs.7,351\/- towards premium for the insurance of the above said lorry.  Ex.R.3,
\nis the certified copy of the cheque dated 15.12.1998 for Rs.7,351\/- issued by
\nthe first respondent, in favour of the second respondent.  It is seen from
\nEx.R.6 that the above said cheque was dishonoured by the bank on the ground that
\nthere was no sufficient fund in the name of the drawer of the cheque, the first
\nrespondent.  Ex.R.7 is said to be the intimation regarding dishonor of the
\ncheque by the second respondent to the first respondent, the owner of the lorry.
\nThe intimation is dated 22.12.1998, i.e, after the date of the accident.  It is
\nseen from Ex.R.6 that the cheque was dishonored on 18.12.1998 itself.  P.W.3
\nwould admit in the cross-examination that the first respondent had paid the
\npremium on 28.12.1998 itself.  So, the learned Counsel for the appellant would
\ncontend that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation,
\nbecause there was no insurance policy for the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-
\n59-E-3499 on the date of the accident.  The learned Counsel appearing for the
\nrespondent \/ claimant relying on the decision in Oriental Insurance Company
\nLimited Vs. Inderjit Kaur and others reported in 1998 (1) LW 11 and contended
\nthat even if the cheque drawn for payment of premium for insurance policy, was
\nbounced, the Insurance Company is not absolved of its obligation to third
\nparties under the policy, merely on the ground that the Insurance Company has
\nnot received the premium.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that as per
\nSection 64 V B of the Insurance Act, unless and until the premium is paid, the
\nInsurance Company is not bound to issue the policy, but, in this case, even
\nbefore the premium was paid under Ex.R.3, cheque was realised, the Insurance
\nCompany has issued Ex.R.5, insurance policy, covering the period from 15.12.1998
\nto 14.12.1998, whereas the accident had occurred only on 19.12.1998, on that
\ndate,  Ex.R.5, insurance policy, was in force.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The facts of the above said dictum in Oriental Insurance Company
\nLimited Vs. Inderjit Kaur and others reported in 1998 (1) LW 11, is that a bus
\nmet with an accident and its insurance policy was issued by the appellant
\ntherein on 30th November 1989.  The premium for the policy was paid by cheque.
\nThe  cheque was dishonoured.  A letter stating that it had been dishonoured was
\nsent by the appellant to the insured on 23rd January, 1990.  The letter claimed
\nthat, as the cheque had not been encashed, the premium on the policy had not
\nbeen received and that, therefore, the appellant was not at risk.  The premium
\nwas paid in cash on 2nd May, 1990.  In the mean time, on 19th April, 1990, the
\naccident took place: the bus collided with a truck, whose driver died.  The
\ntruck driver’s widow and minor sons filed the claim petition.  The appellant
\ndenied the claim asserting that under the terms of Section 64-V B of the
\nInsurance Act, 1938, no risk was assumed by an insurer unless the premium
\nthereon had been received in advance.  The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
\nrejected the appellant’s contention and awarded the claimants, a compensation of
\nRs.96,000\/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of
\nthe petition, to be paid by the insured and the appellant jointly and severally.
\nThe appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
\nwas summarily dismissed and hence, the second appeal was preferred before the
\nApex Court, wherein it has been decided as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“We have, therefore, this position.  Despite the bar created by Section
\n64-VB of the Insurance Act, the appellant, an authorised insurer, issued a
\npolicy of insurance to cover the bus without receiving the premium therefor.  By
\nreason of the provisions of Section 147(5)and 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
\nthe appellant became liable to indemnify third parties in respect of the
\nliability which that policy covered and to satisfy awards of compensation in
\nrespect thereof notwithstanding its entitlement (upon which we do not express
\nany opinion) to avoid or cancel the policy for the reason that the cheque issued
\nin payment of the premium thereon had not been honoured.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe policy of insurance that the appellant issued was a representation
\nupon which the authorities and third parties were entitled to act.  The
\nappellant was not absolved of its obligations to third parties under the policy
\nbecause it did not receive the premium.  Its remedies in this behalf lay against
\nthe insured.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe may note in this connection the following passage in the case of
\nMontreal Street Railway Company Vs. Normandin, A.I.R.1917 Privy Council 142:
\n\t“When the provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public
\nduty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of
\nthis duty would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who
\nhave no control over those entrusted with the duty and at the same time would
\nnot promote the main object of the Legislature, it has been the practice to hold
\nsuch provisions to be directory only, the neglect of the them, though
\npunishable, not affecting the validity of the acts done.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt must also be noted that it was the appellant itself who was responsible
\nfor its predicament.  It had issued the policy of insurance upon receipt only of
\na cheque towards the premium in contravention of the provisions of Section 64-VB
\nof the Insurance Act.  The public interest that a policy of insurance serves
\nmust, clearly, prevail over the interest of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe are of the view, in the circumstances, that the observations in the
\ncase of United India Insurance Co., Limited Vs. Ayeb Mohammed do not lay down
\ngood law.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12. In this case, the learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that
\nthe policy has been subsequently, cancelled by the Insurance Company under
\nEx.R.8 and the same has been acknowledged by the first respondent under Ex.R.9.
\nIt is pertinent to note that the intimation of cancellation of the policy was
\nissued only on 23.05.2000, i.e., about one and half years subsequent to the date
\nof the accident.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that even if the
\ncancellation of the policy was intimated by the Insurance Company to the owner
\nof the lorry involved in the accident, that will not absolve the Insurance
\nCompany from indemnifying their responsibility to the third party victims.  To
\nthis proposition of law, the learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the
\ndecision in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Prakash Chunilal Mirgany and
\nothers reported in 2006 ACJ 15, wherein it has been held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The factual distinction in the present case is that the accident took
\nplace on 25.11.2981 after the insurance company had purported to endorse a
\ncancellation of the insurance policy on 19.11.1991 on the ground of the
\ndishonour of the cheque.  This to my mind would not make any difference to the
\nposition as it obtained at least under the Act of 1939 enunciated that where a
\npolicy of insurance is cancelled, the insurer shall within seven days notify
\nsuch cancellation or suspension to the registering authority in whose records
\nthe registration of the vehicle covered by the policy of insurance is recorded.
\nThe object of this provision is obvious.  Section 94 of the Act contained a
\nspecific prohibition on the use of a motor vehicle unless there is in force a
\npolicy of insurance complying with the provisions of the Chapter.  The
\nprovisions of Section 96(1) which correspond to the provisions of Section 149(1)
\nof the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, have already been noted.  Sub-section (2) of
\nSection 96 of the Act of 1939 enabled the insurer to defend the action against
\nhim on certain specified grounds.  Clause (a) thereof was that the policy was
\ncancelled by mutual consent or by virtue of any provision contained therein
\nbefore the accident giving rise to any liability or that either before or not
\nlater than 14 days after the happening of the accident the insurer has commenced
\nproceedings for cancellation of the certificate after compliance with the
\nprovisions of Section 105.  The requirement that the insurer must notify the
\nregistering authority under Section 105 was, therefore, tied up with the defence
\nwhich was available to the insurer under Section 96(2)(a) that he had either
\nbefore or within 14 days of the accident, commenced proceedings for the
\ncancellation of the contract of insurance after notice as contemplated in
\nSection 105.  In the present case, the admitted position is that neither was any
\nnotice given to the registering authority under Section 105 nor were any
\nproceedings for cancellation after such notice adopted.  That being the
\nposition, the liability of the insurer cannot stand excluded.  In the
\ncircumstances and particularly having regard to the law laid down by the Apex
\nCourt, I am of the view that the first appeal has to be rejected, since the only
\nground which has been raised on behalf of the insurer in these proceedings has
\nnot been found to be tenable.”\n<\/p>\n
\t14. The facts of the above case squarely applies to the present facts of
\nthe case.  Here also, the Insurance Company has not informed the Transport
\nAuthorities as contemplated under Section 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, or
\nthe owner of the vehicle, namely, the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The learned Counsel for the respondent also relied on the decision in
\nNew India Assurance Co. Ltd, Vs. Rula and others reported in 2000 ACJ 630 and
\ncontended that the dishonour of cheque drawn towards premium will not absolve
\nthe Insurance Company from its liability to third parties.  This dictum was
\npronounced following the dictum in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Inderjit
\nKaur reported in 1998 ACJ 123 (SC).  The relevant observation of the above
\ndictum runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Thus, any contract of insurance under Chapter 11 of the Motor Vehicles
\nAct, 1988 contemplates a third party who is not a signatory or a party to the
\ncontract of insurance but is, nevertheless, protected by such contract.  As
\npointed out by this court in New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pessumal
\nDhanamal Aswani, 1958-65 ACJ 559 (SC), the rights of the third party to get
\nindemnified can be exercised only against the insurer of the vehicle.  It is
\nthus clear that the third party is not concerned and does not come to the
\npicture at all in the matter of payment of premium.  Whether the premium has
\nbeen paid or not is not the concern of the third party who is concerned with the
\nfact that there was a policy issued in respect of the vehicle involved in the
\naccident and it is on the basis of this policy that the claim can be maintained
\nby the third party against the insurer.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was in the background of the above statutory provisions that the
\nprovisions of Section 64-VB, upon which reliance has been placed by learned
\nCounsel for the appellant, were considered by this Court in Oriental Insurance
\nCo. Ltd., Vs. Inderjit Kaur, 1998 ACJ 123 (SC), in which it was laid down as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t“We have, therefore, this position.  Despite the bar created by Section
\n64-VB of the Insurance Act, the appellant, an authorised insurer, issued a
\npolicy of insurance to cover the bus without receiving the premium therefor.  By
\nreason of the provisions of Section 147(5)and 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
\nthe appellant became liable to indemnify third parties in respect of the
\nliability which that policy covered and to satisfy awards of compensation in
\nrespect thereof notwithstanding its entitlement (upon which we do not express
\nany opinion) to avoid or cancel the policy for the reason that the cheque issued
\nin payment of the premium thereon had not been honoured.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThis decision, which is a three-Judge Bench decision, squarely covers the
\npresent case also.  The subsequent cancellation of the insurance policy in the
\ninstant case on the ground that the cheque through which premium was paid was
\ndishonoured, would not affect the rights of the third party which had accrued on
\nthe issuance of the policy on the date on which the accident took place.  If on
\nthe date of accident, there was a policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle
\nin question, the third party would have a claim against the insurance company
\nand the owner of the vehicle would have to be indemnified in respect of the
\nclaim of that party.  Subsequent cancellation of insurance policy on the ground
\nof non-payment of premium would not affect the rights already accrued in favour
\nof the third party.”\n<\/p>\n
\t16. The dictum relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the
\nappellant in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Chinnakannan and another
\nreported in  1994 (2) TNMAC 146 will not be applicable to the present facts of
\nthe case.  The facts of the above case are that on 06.05.2002, the claimants
\ntravelled in a goods vehicle along with the goods, namely, 25 Kgs., of rice and
\n5 Kgs., of Dhal and adoration articles to celebrate the family deity festival
\nfrom Anumantheertham towards Uthangarai in a Tempo bearing Registration No.TN-
\n55-8759 belonging to the first respondent.  The second respondent in that case,
\nis the owner of the vehicle and the appellant was the insurer of the above said
\nvehicle.  Following the dictum in New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs. Asha
\nRani and others reported in 2003 ACJ 1, the learned Tribunal held that the
\nInsurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and it has been held in the
\nsaid case as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The Tribunal simply relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Asha
\nRani’s Case to make the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation merely
\nbecause the claimants travelled in the tempo with some goods.  The said judgment
\nwas on the basis of the amendment made in Section 147(1)(b) of the Act according
\nto which, the Insurance Company should indemnify the insured even under “Act
\nonly Policy” if any person including the owner of the goods or his authorised
\nrepresentative carried in the vehicle sustained injury.  It cannot be said that
\ncarrying of the passengers in a goods vehicle is totally prohibited.  But if the
\npredominant intention of the claimants to hire the goods vehicle is not to carry
\nthe goods but to travel in large number with negligent quantity of goods, the
\n“Act only Policy” does not cover the risk and the Insurance Company is not bound
\nto indemnify the insured against any liability to pay compensation.  The
\nconclusion is arrived at only on the basis that the goods vehicle was to carry
\nthe goods but not to take the claimants in large number.  The risk under “Act
\nonly Policy” covers only if the vehicle is hired for carrying the goods and the
\nperson\/persons travelled along with his\/their goods died or sustained injury.”\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The above said dictum will not be applicable to the present facts of
\nthe case.  Because, here the point to be decided is whether the dishonour of the
\ncheque issued for the payment of insurance premium will absolve the liability of
\nthe Insurance Company.  As per, the dictum in 1998 (1) LW 11, the liability of
\nthe Insurance Company will not be absolved of its obligation to third parties
\nunder the policy, merely because, the cheque for the payment of premium of
\ninsurance policy, had bounced.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Hence, I hold on the point No.1 that the appellant \/ National
\nInsurance Company in all the above said appeals and revision, is liable to pay
\nthe compensation to the claimants, even though the cheque for the payment of
\npremium for insurance policy, was dishonoured, as held in 1998 (1) LW 11 (SC).
\nPoint No.1 is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
Point No:2<\/p>\n
\t19. In view of my findings in the earlier paragraph, I hold on the point
\nNo.2 that the award passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.885 of 1999, 981 of 1999, 2835 of
\n2002, 886 of 1999, 489 of 1999 and 490 of 1999 in C.M.A.Nos.932 to 936 of 2005
\nand C.R.P.No.879 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal –
\nAdditional District & Sessions Juge-cum-Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai, are
\nnot liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the Memorandum of appeal
\nand the Revision Petition.  Point No.2 is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. In the result, C.M.A.Nos.932 to 936 of 2005 and C.R.P.No.879 of 2005
\nare dismissed and consequently, the award passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.885 of 1999, 981
\nof 1999, 2835 of 2002, 886 of 1999, 489 of 1999 and 490 of 1999, are hereby
\nconfirmed.  Time for deposit is one month.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. The learned Counsel for the appellant represented that he may be given
\na liberty to file E.P against the owner of the vehicle for realising the award
\namount after paying the same to the claimants.  The request of  the  learned
\nCounsel  appearing  for  the appellant is
\nA.C.ARUMUGA PERUMAL ADITYAN.J<\/p>\n
rsb<\/p>\n
acceded and the appellant is permitted to file E.P against the owner of the
\nvehicle \/ lorry for realisation of the award amount after paying the same to the
\nclaimants \/ third parties in all the M.C.O.Ps.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
rsb    \t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
To
\nThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal –\n<\/p>\n
Additional District & Sessions Juge-cum-\n<\/p>\n
Fast Track Court No.III,
\nMadurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Ayyappan on 8 February, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08\/02\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGA PERUMAL ADITYAN C.M.A.Nos.932 of 2005 C.M.A.Nos.933 to 936 of 2005 and C.R.P.No.879 of 2005 National Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office-I, No.6, […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-162257","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Ayyappan on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Ayyappan on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-05T20:47:06+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Ayyappan on 8 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-05T20:47:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4418,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006\",\"name\":\"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Ayyappan on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-05T20:47:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Ayyappan on 8 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Ayyappan on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Ayyappan on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-05T20:47:06+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Ayyappan on 8 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-05T20:47:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006"},"wordCount":4418,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006","name":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Ayyappan on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-05T20:47:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-m-ayyappan-on-8-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Ayyappan on 8 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/162257","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=162257"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162257\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162257"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162257"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162257"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}