{"id":165692,"date":"2008-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008"},"modified":"2018-02-28T03:09:15","modified_gmt":"2018-02-27T21:39:15","slug":"national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sumathi on 5 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sumathi on 5 February, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 05\/02\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.1660 of 2007\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.2 of 2007\n\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nrep. by its Branch Manager,\n112, Anguvilas Building,\nNorth Car Street,\nNagercoil,\nAgasteeswaram Taluk,\nKanyakumari District.\t\t\t .. Appellant\n\nVs\n\n1.Sumathi\n2.Minor Tamilselvan\n3.Minor Dinesh\n  (R2 and 3 rep. by their\n   mother R1)\n4.Palammal\n5.Satheeshkumar\n6.Konisekammal\t\t    \t\t .. Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the\nJudgement and Decree dated 10.11.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2004 by the\nlearned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the District Judge, Kanyakumari at\nNagercoil.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t... Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian\n\n^For RR1 to 4\t\t... Mr.E.Hariharan\n\nFor RR5 and 6\t\t... No appearance\n\n\t\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis appeal is focussed as against the Judgement and Decree dated<br \/>\n10.11.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2004 by the learned Motor Accidents<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal-cum-the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the  respondent Nos.1 to 4 and there is no representation on<br \/>\nbehalf of the respondent Nos.5 and 6, despite service of notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The Tribunal vide Judgement dated 10.11.2006 awarded compensation to a<br \/>\ntune of Rs.4,93,750\/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety three thousand seven hundred and<br \/>\nfifty only) under the following sub-heads:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor loss of income\t-Rs.4,89,600\/-\n<\/p>\n<pre>\tFor loss of watch\t-Rs.     400\/-\n\tFor loss of cloth\t-Rs.     250\/-\n\tFor loss of gold ring\t-Rs.   1,000\/-\n\tFor funeral expenses\t-Rs.   2,000\/-\n\tFor transport expenses\t-Rs.     500\/-\n\t\t\t\t--------------\n\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.4,93,750\/-\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t--------------\t\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t4. The challenge in this appeal is on the following grounds:<br \/>\n\tThe Tribunal in the absence of evidence to prove the monthly income of the<br \/>\ndeceased should not have simply assessed the monthly income in a sum of<br \/>\nRs.3600\/- (Rupees three thousand and six hundred only).  The multiplier applied<br \/>\nis also on the higher side.  Accordingly, the appellant\/ Insurance Company prays<br \/>\nfor modifying the award.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded &#8216;just<br \/>\ncompensation&#8217;?\n<\/p>\n<p>6. On point:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned counsel for the appellant\/Insurance Company by placing<br \/>\nreliance on the grounds of appeal would develop his arguments to the effect that<br \/>\nthe accident took place in the year 2003 and as per the then standard in the<br \/>\nabsence of clinching evidence the monthly income of the deceased should have<br \/>\nbeen taken normally in a sum of Rs.3000\/- (Rupees three thousand only) per<br \/>\nmonth, but the Tribunal without any basis simply had chosen Rs.3600\/- (Rupees<br \/>\nthree thousand and six hundred only) as the monthly income of the deceased,<br \/>\nwhereas the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4\/claimants placing<br \/>\nreliance on the evidence of PW2, an independent witness, would submit that the<br \/>\ndeceased was actually working for three months as an agricultural labourer and<br \/>\nduring the rest of the year he was in the habit of selling ice; the Tribunal was<br \/>\nright in fixing the monthly income of the deceased in a sum of Rs.3600\/- (Rupees<br \/>\nthree thousand and six hundred only).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. In this context, I would like to refer to the decisions of the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nApex Court in State of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur and others reported in<br \/>\n2004-1-L.W.1 and the decision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1045216\/\">Tamil Nadu State Road Transport<br \/>\nCorporation Limited v. Mayilathal &amp; Others<\/a> reported in 2004(1)TN MAC 337.   The<br \/>\nperusal of the Judgments of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court as well as this Court would<br \/>\nhighlight the fact that in the absence of evidence, it is always just and proper<br \/>\nto choose the figure which would not be unjustifiable.  The Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court<br \/>\nalso highlighted that there should not any bonanza to the claimants and in the<br \/>\nmeantime it should not be low as well.  PW2 deposed before the Tribunal as to<br \/>\nthe income of the deceased.  But the fact remains that even as per the arguments<br \/>\nof the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4\/claimants, the Minimum<br \/>\nWages Act contemplates the wages of an agricultural coolie in a sum of Rs.120\/-<br \/>\n(Rupees one hundred and twenty only) per day.  It is common knowledge that<br \/>\nagricultural coolies would not be able to work on all the days in a month and at<br \/>\nthe most in a month they could work for 25 days and accordingly if calculated<br \/>\nthe monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.3000\/- (Rupees three<br \/>\nthousand only) (120 x 25 = 3000).  As such in either way, it is clear that<br \/>\nduring the year 2003, the monthly income of the deceased should have been<br \/>\nassessed in a sum of Rs.3000\/- (Rupees three thousand only) instead of Rs.3600\/-<br \/>\n(Rupees three thousand and six hundred only) and after deducting 1\/3rd towards<br \/>\nthe expenditure which the deceased would have incurred for maintaining himself<br \/>\nhad he been alive irrespective of the fact whether the deceased lead the life of<br \/>\na Bohemian or that of a Spartan, his monthly contribution to the family would<br \/>\ncome to Rs.2,000\/- (Rupees two thousand only).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Regarding the multiplier chosen by the tribunal, I am of the considered<br \/>\nopinion that no interference is required as the claimants here are the wife and<br \/>\ntwo minor children along with the mother of the deceased.  Taking a cue from the<br \/>\nSecond Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier 17 is the<br \/>\nappropriate one.  I am fully aware of the fact that in all cases the multiplier<br \/>\nas found suggested in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act<br \/>\ncannot be taken as conclusive.  But here, unless the multiplier 17 is chosen,<br \/>\nsizeable compensation could not be arrived at.  Anything less than the<br \/>\nmultiplier 17 would be detrimental to the claimants in getting just<br \/>\ncompensation.  While reducing the multiplicand, if the multiplier also is<br \/>\nreduced, then naturally the total compensation would get drastically reduced,<br \/>\nwhich in my opinion should not be done.  By way of striking a balance between<br \/>\nthe two, I would like to assess the loss of dependency at Rs.4,08,000\/- (Rupees<br \/>\nfour lakhs and eight thousand only) (2000 x 12 x 17 = 4,08,000\/-).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The Tribunal fell into error in not awarding compensation towards loss<br \/>\nof consortium and loss of love and affection.  As such considering the age of<br \/>\nthe widow as 30, a sum of Rs.15,000\/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) could be<br \/>\nawarded towards loss of consortium.  The awarding of compensation under the sub<br \/>\nhead loss of consortium would exclude the compensation under the caption loss of<br \/>\nlove and affection towards the spouse.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In respect of other claimants 2,3 and 4, a sum of Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees<br \/>\nten thousand only) each could be awarded under the caption loss of love and<br \/>\naffection.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Under the three sub heads such as loss of watch, loss of cloth and<br \/>\nloss of gold ring the Tribunal awarded Rs.400\/- Rs.250\/- and Rs.1000\/-<br \/>\nrespectively.  All the three should have brought under the caption loss of<br \/>\nestate.  As such no interference is required relating to the compensation<br \/>\nawarded under that caption totally in a sum of Rs.1650\/- (Rupees one thousand<br \/>\nsix hundred and fifty only).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Towards funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.2000\/- (Rupees two thousand<br \/>\nonly) was awarded in addition to having awarded Rs.500\/- (Rupees five hundred<br \/>\nonly) towards transport expenses, which also require no interference.<br \/>\nAccordingly, the compensation is modified as under:<br \/>\n\tFor loss of income\t-Rs.4,08,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor loss of estate\t-Rs.   1,650\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor loss of consortium\t-Rs.  15,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor loss of love and<br \/>\n  \t\taffection\t-Rs.  30,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor funeral expenses\t-Rs.   2,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<pre>\tFor transport expenses\t-Rs.     500\/-\n\t\t\t\t--------------\n\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.4,57,150\/-\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t--------------\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t13. The Tribunal awarded 12% interest p.a.; considering the prevailing<br \/>\nrate at that time, the interest awarded is reduced to 7.5% p.a.<\/p>\n<p>\t14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and<br \/>\nthe award of the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.4,93,750\/- (Rupees four lakhs<br \/>\nninety three thousand seven hundred and fifty only) to Rs.4,57,150\/- (Rupees<br \/>\nfour lakhs fifty seven thousand one hundred and fifty only), which shall carry<br \/>\ninterest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of M.C.O.P. till payment.<br \/>\nProportionately there will be variation in the allotments in favour<br \/>\nof each of the claimants depending upon the variation in the total compensation<br \/>\nawarded herein.  No costs.  Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is<br \/>\nclosed.\n<\/p>\n<p>smn<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum<br \/>\nthe District Judge,<br \/>\nKanyakumari at Nagercoil.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sumathi on 5 February, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05\/02\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD)No.1660 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2007 National Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, 112, Anguvilas Building, North Car Street, Nagercoil, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. [&hellip;]<\/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-165692","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sumathi on 5 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-sumathi-on-5-february-2008\" \/>\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 Sumathi on 5 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-27T21:39:15+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=\"7 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-sumathi-on-5-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sumathi on 5 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-27T21:39:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1235,\"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-sumathi-on-5-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008\",\"name\":\"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sumathi on 5 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-27T21:39:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sumathi on 5 February, 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":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sumathi on 5 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-sumathi-on-5-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sumathi on 5 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-27T21:39:15+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sumathi on 5 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-27T21:39:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008"},"wordCount":1235,"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-sumathi-on-5-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008","name":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sumathi on 5 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-27T21:39:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-sumathi-on-5-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sumathi on 5 February, 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\/165692","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=165692"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165692\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165692"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165692"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165692"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}