{"id":176587,"date":"2005-04-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-04-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005"},"modified":"2015-06-25T00:56:24","modified_gmt":"2015-06-24T19:26:24","slug":"ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Jagson International Ltd vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd, on 11 April, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal<\/div>\n
M\/S. Jagson International Ltd vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd, on 11 April, 2005<\/div>\n
  \n \n \n \n \n \n NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION\n  \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\nNATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION \n\n \n\n  NEW\n  DELHI \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 167 OF 2000 \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nM\/s. Jagson\nInternational Ltd. \nComplainant \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nVersus \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nNew India\nAssurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. \nOpposite Parties \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n BEFORE : \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n HONBLE MR.JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT \n\n \n\n DR. P.D. SHENOY, MEMBER \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor the Complainant : Mr. R. C. Mishra,\nAdvocate \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor the Opp. Party : Mr. Vishnu Mehra,\nAdvocate \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n Dated :  11.04.\n2005 \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 M.B. SHAH, J., PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  It
\nis the say of the complainant that the company is engaged in the business of
\ndrilling oil in Bombay High area under the supervision of Oil and Natural Gas
\nCommission. For this purpose, the
\ncomplainant owns a RIG. The complainant
\ntook an insurance policy called Combined Hull Policy\/Package Policy for an
\namount of Rs.42,50,00,000\/- by paying premium of
\nRs.19,16,750\/- for a period effective from 23.12.1998 to 22.12.1999; on 29th June, 1999 an accident
\ntook place and the crane boom got twisted and the bridle line broke and boom
\nfell on the top of the schlumberger unit. On the same date, complainant addressed a
\nletter to the insurance company giving details of the accident of Deep Sea Matdrill Jack Up Rig which was
\ninsured. On 30.6.1999, the complainant
\nestimated the cost of repairs \/ replacements which was
\nexpected to exceed 15 million rupees.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Thereafter,
\nthe insurance company appointed M\/s. J.B. Boda
\nOffshore Surveyors & Adjusters Pvt. Ltd. to
\nassess the damage. As per the surveyors
\nreport circumstances leading to incident are as under:\n<\/p>\n
On  June 29, 1999 the rig was in the process of
\nexploratory drilling at location C-37\/B at Tapti
\nField.\n<\/p>\n
At 0950 Hrs.the rig had commenced
\nparallel operations of snatch lift of cargo consisting of production control
\nhead from OSV\/ SINDHU-8 using the barges Port Crane.\n<\/p>\n
During the operation of attempting to rig up and lift the
\ncargo, the vessel, due to strong winds and tide caused by the prevailing
\nmonsoon was unable to hold position resulting in the crane hook entangling with
\nthe support rail of SINDHU-8.\n<\/p>\n
The fast and uncontrollable drift to the vessel with the
\nfouled up lifting hook of the crane caused serious buckling of the boom and
\nsubsequent shearing at the hinge of the boom whose free fall resulted in
\nmultiple damages to the surrounding structure (Like Helideck,
\nSchlumberger Unit) and the crane sections (Hoist Wires, Prime Mover and
\nOperators Cabin).\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
   In the preliminary report, surveyors
\nestimated the loss at Rs.74 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
Complainant protested and presented the claim bills at Rs.80,69,136\/-. The surveyors informed that air-freight will not
\nbe allowed and only notional sea-freight will be considered and submitted the
\nfinal survey report dated 3.2.2000 assessing the loss at Rs.42,97,253\/-.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Relevant part is
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
 FINAL ADUJSTMENT
\nSUMMARY  <\/p>\n
  \u00a0<\/p>\n
Sr. No. <\/p>\n
   Description <\/p>\n
Amount Rs.\n<\/p>\n
1. <\/p>\n
Amount Considered
\n  fair and reasonable.\n<\/p>\n
Rs. 42,97,253.00 <\/p>\n
2. <\/p>\n
Less: Payment ON
\n  ACCOUNT Recommended vide our Report of even number dated  August
\n   20,1999.\n<\/p>\n
Rs. 18,50,000.00 <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Total :\n<\/p>\n
Rs. 24,47,253.00 <\/p>\n
  \u00a0<\/p>\n
 After application of the deductible excess of Rs.
\n20,00,000=00, a net adjusted claim of Rs. 4,47,253=00 falls for underwriters consideration.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
Rs.20 lakhs were deducted by applying 30% depreciation
\ntowards cost of spares.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Thereafter, on  March 3, 2000 the Complainant informed the CMD, Insurance Company that they have
\ngiven final bill amounting to Rs.80 lakhs to the surveyor on 14.12.1999. This
\nbill contained airfreight charges amounting to Rs.17 lakhs as the spare parts
\nwere required to be brought by air because it was urgently required and no ship
\nwas available for the next few days. Nowhere in the policy, there is a
\ncondition which provides that airfreight is to be excluded. It was, therefore, contended that the
\nsurveyor has arbitrarily awarded only Rs.3 lakhs and not Rs.17 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Again a letter
\nwas written on  10th March, 2000 stating
\nthat they do not require any favour from the surveyor whom the Insurance
\nCompany thought fair and reasonable. The
\nsettlement can be reasonable only if it is in accordance with the policy issued
\nby the Insurance Company. It was also
\nstated that surveyor has wrongly referred to a condition of the insurance
\npolicy which provides that cost of replacement less depreciation will be paid.
\nIt was also mentioned that even in normal course they bring the spare parts by
\nair and there is no written agreement that airfreight will
\nnot be paid. It was pointed out that the surveyor
\nwas definitely prejudiced for reasons which are not known. But, the Insurance
\nCompany is a party to the contract and and should not
\nact against it.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  To
\nthat letter reply was sent by the Assistant General Manager of the Insurance
\nCompany on 27\/28th April, 2000 wherein it was stated that expediting
\nexpenses were not allowed, as the policy did not cover for such expenses. It is
\nsubmitted that premium for expediting expenses were not paid by the
\nComplainant. Therefore, airfreight was rightly not granted. It was also pointed
\nout that the amount of Rs.20 lakhs was deducted as per the terms of the policy.
\nFor this, reference is made to term of the policy which provides for expediting
\nexpenses.\n<\/p>\n
  \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  In view of the aforesaid dispute, as
\nthe claimed amount was not paid, this complaint was filed on 19.5.2000 before
\nthis Commission for recovering, in all, Rs.62,19,136\/- towards loss suffered by
\nthe Complainant with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and costs.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 At the time of
\nhearing of this complaint, learned Counsel for the Complainant raised only two
\ncontentions, namely:\n<\/p>\n
(a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\ndeduction of Rs.20 lakhs is totally unjustified. The said deduction is on the
\nbasis of depreciation of the crane which was repaired by spending large
\namount. The reduction of this amount is
\nwithout any basis.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nsecondly, there was no justifiable reason for not awarding airfreight charges of
\nRs.17 lakhs and only of paying Rs.3 lakhs which would be sea freight for
\nbringing the spares from Huston (U.S.A.) and   Singapore.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Contention (a):\n<\/p>\n
  Learned
\ncounsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company submitted that reduction
\nof 30% is on the basis of clause-10 of the insurance policy. The said clause is as under
\n:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Limit of
\nLiability:\n<\/p>\n
In no event, except as
\nprovided for in the Sue and Labour Expense Clause and Collision Liability
\nClause herein, shall the Underwriters liability arising from any one accident
\nor occurrence exceed the amount insured hereunder as set forth in Clause 3 in
\nrespect of the items subject to claim in such accident or occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
 In
\nrespect of the property insured hereunder Underwriters shall not be liable for
\nmore than their proportion of the cost of repairing or replacing the property
\ndamaged or lost with materials of like kind and quality to a condition equal to
\nbut not superior to or more extensive than its condition prior to the loss; nevertheless
\nin respect of the hull of the drilling be covered hereunder all costs of repair
\nand replacement for which Underwriters may be liable shall be on the basis of
\nnew for old with no deduction for depreciation.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
In no event
\nshall Underwriters be liable for any increased cost of repair or construction
\nby reason of law, ordinance, regulation, permit or licence regulating
\nconstruction or repair.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
On the basis of the aforesaid clause it is submitted that
\nthe insurance companys liability is limited to replacing the property damaged
\nwith materials of like kind and quality to a condition equal to but not
\nsuperior to its condition prior to the loss.
\nIt is contended that admittedly the complainant in their balance sheet
\nhad claimed 30% depreciation of the repaired item and, therefore, the said
\namount was justifiably deducted.\n<\/p>\n
  In
\nour view, this submission cannot be accepted.
\nIf we read the aforesaid clause, it is apparent that the insurance
\ncompany has limited its liability to the extent of cost of repairing or
\nreplacing the property damaged or lost with materials of like kind and quality
\nto a condition equal to but not superior to or more extensive than its
\ncondition prior to loss. In this case, the complainant has not purchased a new
\ncrane. The crane is repaired and for
\nrepairs whatever amount is required to
\nbe paid, is
\nto be reimbursed
\nby the insurance company. It cannot be
\ncontended that as
\nthe RIG was used for some time,
\nthe <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
Cmplainant should repair the
\ncrane and replace the damaged parts only with those parts which were used for
\nsome time or similarly used articles.\n<\/p>\n
This would be practically impossible.\n<\/p>\n
It is not the case of the insurance company that the complainant has
\nrepaired the crane with any superior material or that material was of different
\nkind and quality.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Further, in the
\ncomplaint it has been pointed out that the crane is a part of hull of
\nthe rig and there cannot be deductions for depreciation as envisaged under
\ncondition for limit of liability. The relevant clause is quoted above. It specifically provides that in respect of
\nthe hull of the drilling base covered all costs of repairs and the
\nreplacement for which the underwriters shall pay on the basis of new for old
\nwith no deduction in depreciation.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 On behalf of the
\nInsurance Company an affidavit has been filed by Mrs. Alice G. Vaidyan, who was working as Manager in the office of the
\nInsurance Company. In the said affidavit it has been stated that there is no
\ndamage to the hull of the drilling barge covered by the policy, but damage is
\nonly to the crane which is not the hull of the drilling barge, but is only an equipment. In our view, it would be
\ndifficult to hold that the equipment which is part of the hull cannot be said
\nto be part of the hull. It has been
\nrightly pointed out that the property insured is jack up drilling Rig Matdrill which consists of hull and machinery of the
\ndrilling barge, hull and crane cannot be treated as separate item. Crane is an integral part of hull and not
\nequipment. There is nothing on record to
\nhold that the crane is not part of the hull of the drilling barge. The policy
\ntaken by the insured is a combined hull package policy. In any case, if the
\nterm of the policy is vague, benefit certainly goes to the assured and not to
\nthe insurer. Otherwise, the purpose of insurance policy to protect against the
\nperils for which insurance coverage is given, would be
\ndefeated. Law on this subject is settled
\n[(i) re.Shashi Gupta (Smt.) Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC
\n7540]. [(ii) In United India Insurance
\nCo. Ltd. Vs. Pushpalaya Printers (2004) 3 SCC 694)]
\nthe apex court has also held that where
\nthe words of a documents are ambiguous they must be construed against
\nthe party who prepared the documents  <\/p>\n
  Further
\nto avoid such situation,
\ninstead of borrowing the terms of the policy, it is high time for
\nInsurance Companies to have precise
\nterms of the policy which could be easily understood and suit the present day situation. If the terms of the policy are understood
\nproperly by the parties such disputes could be avoided.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Admittedly,
\nin this case the complainant has submitted bills totalling Rs.80,66,196\/-. However,
\nsurveyors assessed the loss at Rs.42,97,253\/- as fair
\nand reasonable cost of repair. Once that
\namount was assessed, there was no justifiable reason to hold that repair cost
\nis required to be depreciated by 30%. In
\nthis view of the matter, deduction of Rs.20 lakhs cannot be justified.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Contention (b) <\/p>\n
  The complainant has also claimed air-freight charges amounting to Rs.17
\nlakhs. The surveyors have allowed only
\nRs.3 lakhs on the basis of ocean-freight.\n<\/p>\n
For justification of the non-payment of air-freight, learned counsel Mr.Mehra submitted that no extra premium was paid by the
\ncomplainant. The relevant clause for expediting expenses is as under:\n<\/p>\n
  EXPEDITING EXPENSES  <\/p>\n
   \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Coverage under this section of the policy is extended to
\ninclude additional costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the Insured or
\non their behalf in connection with or incidental to expediting the
\ncommencement, carrying out or the completion of the repair or replacement of
\nthe interest hereunder as a consequence of the loss of or damage to property
\ncovered by the terms of this policy.\n<\/p>\n
Such additional costs and expenses include but are not limited to:\n<\/p>\n
  \u00a0<\/p>\n
 (a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nNecessary
\nexpenses of chartered carriage or delivery  <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 (b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nChartered and \/or
\nother travel (including by sea or air) of the Insureds directors, officers,
\nemployees, agents, contractors, sub-contractors, consultants or representatives <\/p>\n
 (c)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nHire of additional
\nlabour, equipment, materials or services <\/p>\n
 (d)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
\nAccommodation including meals and other associated costs.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  There
\nis nothing on record to arrive at a conclusion that the aforesaid term requires
\npayment of additional premium. The said
\nterm only provides that policy is extended to include additional cost and
\nexpenses reasonably incurred by the insured for carrying out the repair. As such, this can be termed as part and
\nparcel of the policy condition because for repairs reasonable cost incurred by
\nthe insured is required to be reimbursed.\n<\/p>\n
It does not require any separate payment of premium. Otherwise the whole purpose of the policy is
\nfrustrated. There is nothing on record
\nto indicate that while accepting the large premium, the Insurance Company or its
\nagent had informed that repair cost would not include transport cost for
\nbringing articles for repair or if article is required to be shifted form one
\nplace to another for its repair, the cost incurred for repair would not be
\nreimbursed. In any case, it depends upon the practice of the Complainant and it
\nis stated by the Complainant that in such cases, they were bringing such spares
\nfor repair by airfreight. Further, if
\nsuch cost was not required to be reimbursed, then there was no necessity of
\nreimbursing notional
\nocean freight. This reveals that stand taken by the Insurance
\nCompany is inconsistent. Further, it is not the case of the Insurance
\nCompany that the articles, which were brought from foreign country, were
\navailable in   India at a lesser cost.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  In
\nthe result, it is held that deductions of Rs.20 lakhs (30% depreciation from
\nthe cost of repairs) and Rs.14 lakhs ( i.e. Rs.17
\nlakhs airfreight minus Rs.3 lakhs paid
\non an assumption that goods ought to have been brought by ship) are held to be unjustified. Hence, the Insurance
\nCompany is directed to pay to the Complainant in all Rs.34 lakhs which was wrongly deducted on the
\nalleged account of depreciation and from the airfreight incurred by the
\nComplainant with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from six months after the
\ndate of the incident, i.e.  29th December, 1999 till the
\ndate of payment. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000\/- as costs. The costs shall be deposited with the legal
\naid fund of NCDRC.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 ..J.\n<\/p>\n
 (M.B.SHAH) <\/p>\n
 PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 .\n<\/p>\n
 (P.D.SHENOY) <\/p>\n
 MEMBER <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal M\/S. Jagson International Ltd vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd, on 11 April, 2005 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI \u00a0 \u00a0 ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 167 OF 2000 \u00a0 \u00a0 M\/s. Jagson International Ltd. Complainant \u00a0 Versus \u00a0 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Opposite […]<\/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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-176587","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Jagson International Ltd vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd, on 11 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Jagson International Ltd vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd, on 11 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-24T19:26:24+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Jagson International Ltd vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd, on 11 April, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-24T19:26:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2394,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Jagson International Ltd vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd, on 11 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-24T19:26:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Jagson International Ltd vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd, on 11 April, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Jagson International Ltd vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd, on 11 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Jagson International Ltd vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd, on 11 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-24T19:26:24+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Jagson International Ltd vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd, on 11 April, 2005","datePublished":"2005-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-24T19:26:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005"},"wordCount":2394,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005","name":"M\/S. Jagson International Ltd vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd, on 11 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-24T19:26:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jagson-international-ltd-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-on-11-april-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Jagson International Ltd vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd, on 11 April, 2005"}]},{"@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\/176587","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=176587"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176587\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176587"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176587"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176587"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}