{"id":180335,"date":"2003-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003"},"modified":"2018-05-02T06:22:19","modified_gmt":"2018-05-02T00:52:19","slug":"the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003","title":{"rendered":"The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C. Padma & Anr on 12 September, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C. Padma & Anr on 12 September, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: J Sema<\/div>\n
Bench: S.N. Variava, H.K. Sema.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5764 of 1997\n\nPETITIONER:\nThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd.          \t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nC. Padma & Anr. \t\t\t\t                       \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/09\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nS.N. VARIAVA &  H.K. SEMA.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
SEMA,J<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
\n5.12.1996 passed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tBriefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal arise
\nout of the following circumstances.  In a motor accident, which took place
\non 18.2.1989, the respondents sustained bodily injuries. The claim petition
\nwas filed on 2.11.1995, claiming compensation of Rs.one lakh.  The Claims
\nTribunal rejected the plea of limitation raised by the appellant herein and
\nawarded compensation of Rs. 45,000\/-.  The Revision Petition, filed by the
\nappellant, was also dismissed by the High Court on 5.12.1996.
\n\tWe have heard Mr. Sunil Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant.
\nRespondent Nos. 1 and 2 were put to notice.  The Office Report dated
\n24.7.2003 disclosed that the notice was served on respondent No.1 on 14th
\nOctober, 1997 by affixing notice on the door of the house of respondent
\nNo.1.  A certificate of the High Court dated 24th October, 1997 indicates that
\nrespondent No.2 had refused to accept the notice and the same was affixed
\non the door of her given address.     The respondents are, therefore, not
\nrepresented before us.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe only contention, which has been strenuously urged by the counsel
\nfor the appellant, is that the accident had taken place on 18.2.1989 and the
\nclaim petition was filed on 2.11.1995; when the claim was barred under the
\nold Act, the same could not have been revived under the new Act.   It is his
\ncontention that on this score alone the claim petition should have been
\ndismissed.      To answer this contention it would be useful to have a quick
\nsurvey of changes that have taken place in the Act.  The old Act of 1939 has
\nbeen repealed and since then there is a sea of changes in the Act.  In the old
\nMotor Vehicles Act, 1939(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) sub-section (3)
\nof Section 110-A provided:\n<\/p>\n
\t“110-A.  (3) No application for such compensation shall
\nbe entertained unless it is made within six months of the
\noccurrence of the accident:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the
\napplication after the expiry of the said period of six months if it
\nis satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause
\nfrom making the application in time.”\n<\/p>\n
The 1939 Act was repealed w.e.f 1.7.1989.  The period of limitation
\nprescribed in the new Act is provided under sub-section (3) of Section 166.
\nIt reads:-\n<\/p>\n
“166.(3) No application for such compensation shall be
\nentertained unless it is made within six months of the
\noccurrence of the accident:\n<\/p>\n
 Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the
\napplication after the expiry of the said period of six months but
\nnot later than twelve months, if it is satisfied that the applicant
\nwas prevented by sufficient cause from making the application
\nin time.”\n<\/p>\n
The only difference that has been brought about in between the old
\nAct and the new Act is that the Tribunal may entertain an application after
\nthe expiry of period of six months but not later than twelve months.
\nIn the instant case, at the time, when the respondents had filed claim
\npetition on 2.11.1995, the situation was completely different.  Sub-section
\n(3) of Section 166 of the Act had been omitted by Act 53 of 1994 w.e.f.
\n14.11.1994.  The result of the Act 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment)
\nAct, 1994 is that there is no limitation prescribed for filing claim petitions
\nbefore the Tribunal in respect of any accident w.e.f. 14.11.1994.
\nIt is noticed that the High Court while dismissing the Revision
\nPetition filed by the appellant had followed the decision rendered by this
\nCourt in Dhannalal   vs.   D.P.Vijayvargiya,<\/a> (1996) 4 SCC 652.  The facts
\nof that case were like this.  The appellant was injured in a motor accident,
\nwhich took place on 4-12-1990.  The claim petition for compensation was
\nfiled before the Tribunal on 7.12.1991 along with an application for
\ncondonation of delay, which was allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated
\n18.11.1993.  The validity of order of the Tribunal was challenged before the
\nHigh Court and the High Court by its order dated 31.7.1995 set-aside the
\norder of the Tribunal holding that the power of Tribunal to condone the
\ndelay under Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act of
\n1988 had been withdrawn and therefore the claim petition must be filed
\nwithin the period prescribed therein.  This Court set aside the High Court
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
This Court in Dhannalal’s case (supra), after examining the effect of
\nthe various amendments that have been brought about in the Act, stated in
\nparagraphs 6 and 7 as under:-\n<\/p>\n
6.”Before the scope of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act
\nis examined, it may be pointed out that the aforesaid sub-
\nsection (3) of Section 166 of the Act has been omitted by Act
\n53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came
\nin force w.e.f. 14.11.1994.  The effect of the Amending Act is
\nthat w.e.f. 14.11.1994 there is no limitation for filing claims
\nbefore the Tribunal in respect of any accident.  It can be said
\nthat Parliament realised the grave injustice and injury which
\nwas being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the
\nvictims who died in accidents by rejecting their claim petitions
\nonly on ground of limitation.  It is a matter of common
\nknowledge that majority of the claimants for such
\ncompensation are ignorant about the period during which such
\nclaims should be preferred.  After the death due to the accident
\nof the breadearner of the family, in many cases such claimants
\nare virtually on the streets.  Even in cases where the victims
\nescape death some of such victims are hospitalised for months
\nif not for years.  In the present case itself the applicant claims
\nthat he met with the accident on 4.12.1990 and he was being
\ntreated as an indoor patient till 27.9.1991.  According to us, in
\nits wisdom, Parliament rightly thought that prescribing a period
\nof limitation and restricting the power of the Tribunal to
\nentertain any claim petition beyond the period of twelve months
\nfrom the date of the accident was harsh, inequitable and in
\nmany cases was likely to cause injustice to the claimants.  The
\npresent case is a glaring example where the appellant has been
\ndeprived by the order of the High Court from claiming the
\ncompensation because of delay of only four days in preferring
\nthe claim petition.\n<\/p>\n
7.”In this background, now it has to be examined as to
\nwhat is the effect of omission of sub-section (3) of Section 166
\nof the Act.  From the amending Act it does not appear that the
\nsaid sub-section (3) has been deleted retrospectively.  But at the
\nsame time, there is nothing in the amending Act to show that
\nbenefit of deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 is not to be
\nextended to pending claim petitions where a plea of limitation
\nhas been raised.  The effect of deletion of sub-section (3) from
\nSection 166 of the Act can be tested by an illustration.  Suppose
\nan accident had taken place two years before 14.11.1994 when
\nsub-section (3) was omitted from Section 166.  For one reason
\nor the other no claim petition had been filed by the victim or the
\nheirs of the victim till 14.11.1994.  Can a claim petition be not
\nfiled after 14.11.1994 in respect of such accident?  Whether a
\nclaim petition filed after 14.11.1994 can be rejected by the
\nTribunal on the ground of limitation saying that the period of
\ntwelve months which had been prescribed when sub-section (3)
\nof Section 166 was in force having expired the right to prefer
\nthe claim petition had been extinguished and shall not be
\nrevived after deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 w.e.f.
\n14.11.1994?  According to us, the answer should be in negative.
\nWhen sub-section (3) of Section 166 has been omitted, then the
\nTribunal has to entertain a claim petition without taking note of
\nthe date on which such accident had taken place.  The claim
\npetitions cannot be thrown out on the ground that such claim
\npetitions were barred by time when sub-section (3) of Section
\n166 was in force.  It need not be impressed that Parliament from
\ntime to time has introduced amendments in the old Act as well
\nas in the new Act in order to protect the interests of the victims
\nof the accidents and their heirs if the victims die.  One such
\namendment has been introduced in the Act by the aforesaid
\nAmendment Act 54 of 1994 by substituting sub-section (6) of
\nSection 158 which provides:\n<\/p>\n
“158. (6) As soon as any information regarding any
\naccident involving death or bodily injury to any person is
\nrecorded or report under this section is completed by a police
\nofficer, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward a
\ncopy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording
\nof information or, as the case may be, on completion of such
\nreport to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy
\nthereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made
\navailable to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt
\nof such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and
\ninsurer.”\n<\/p>\n
In view of sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act the
\nofficer-in-charge of the police station is enjoined to forward a
\ncopy of information\/report regarding the accident to the
\nTribunal having jurisdiction.  A copy thereof has also to be
\nforwarded to the insurer concerned.  It also requires that where
\na copy is made available to the owner of the vehicle, he shall
\nwithin thirty days of receipt of such copy forward the same to
\nthe Claims Tribunal and insurer.  In this background, the
\ndeletion of sub-section (3) from Section 166 should be given
\nfull effect so that the object of deletion of the said section by
\nParliament is not defeated.  If a victim of the accident or heirs
\nof the deceased victim can prefer claim for compensation
\nalthough not being preferred earlier because of the expiry of the
\nperiod of limitation prescribed, how the victim or the heirs of
\nthe deceased shall be in a worse position if the question of
\ncondonation of delay in filing the claim petition is pending
\neither before the Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme
\nCourt.  The present appeal is one such case.  The appellant has
\nbeen pursuing from the Tribunal to this Court.  His right to get
\ncompensation in connection with the accident in question is
\nbeing resisted by the respondents on the ground of delay in
\nfiling the same.  If he had not filed any petition for claim till
\n14.11.1994 in respect of the accident which took place on
\n4.12.1990, in view of the amending Act he became entitled to
\nfile such claim petition, the period of limitation having been
\ndeleted, the claim petition which has been filed and is being
\npursued up to this Court cannot be thrown out on the ground of
\nlimitation.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\tThe ratio laid down in Dhannalal’s  case (supra) applies with full
\nforce to the facts of the present case.   When the claim petition was filed sub-
\nsection (3) of Section 166 had been omitted.  Thus, the Tribunal was bound
\nto entertain the claim petition without taking note of the date on which the
\naccident took place.  Faced with this situation, Mr. Kapoor submitted that
\nDhannalal’s case does not consider Section 6A of the General Clauses Act
\nand therefore, needs to be reconsidered.  We are unable to accept the
\nsubmission.  Section 6A of the General Clauses Act undoubtedly provides
\nthat the repeal of a provision will not affect the continuance of the enactment
\nso repealed and in operation at the time of repeal.  However, this is subject
\nto “unless a different intention appears”.  In Dhannalal’s case the reason for
\nthe deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 has been set out.  It is noted
\nthat the Parliament realized the grave injustice and injury caused to heirs and
\nlegal representatives of the victims of accidents if the claim petition was
\nrejected only on ground of limitation.   Thus “the different intention” clearly
\nappears and Section 6A of the General Clauses Act would not apply.
\nMr. Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant, has placed reliance on
\nthe decision rendered by this Court in Vinod Gurudas Raikar   vs.
\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR<\/a> 1991 SC 2156.  The facts of that case
\nwere that the appellant was injured in an accident, which took place on
\n22.1.1989.  The claim petition of the appellant was filed on 15.3.1990 with a
\nprayer for condonation of delay.  The Tribunal held that in view of sub-
\nsection (3) of Section 166 of the new Motor Vehicles Act, which came into
\nforce on 1.7.1989, the delay of more than six months could not be condoned.
\nIn the facts and circumstances of that case this Court held that the case of the
\nappellant was covered by the new Act and the delay for a longer period than
\nsix months could not be condoned.  In our view, the facts of the case in
\nVinod Gurudas (supra) are different from the facts of the present case, as
\nnoticed above.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the appellant, next contended that since no period
\nof limitation has been prescribed by the Legislature, Article 137 of the
\nLimitation Act may be invoked, otherwise, according to him, stale claims
\nwould be encouraged leading to multiplicity of litigation for non-prescribing
\nthe period of limitation.  We are unable to countenance with the contention
\nof the appellant for more than one reason.  Firstly, such an Act like Motor
\nVehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the
\nvictims or their families, if otherwise the claim is found genuine.  Secondly,
\nit is a self contained Act which prescribes mode of filing the application,
\nprocedure to be followed and award to be made.  The Parliament, in its
\nwisdom, realised the grave injustice and injury being caused to the heirs and
\nlegal representatives of the victims who suffer bodily injuries\/die in
\naccidents, by rejecting their claim petitions at the threshold on the ground of
\nlimitation, and purposely deleted sub-section (3) of Section 166, which
\nprovided the period of limitation for filing the claim petitions and this being
\nthe intendment of the Legislature to give effective relief to the victims and
\nthe families of the motor accidents untrammeled by the technicalities of the
\nlimitation, invoking of Article 137 of the Limitation Act would defeat the
\nintendment of the Legislature.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the order under
\nchallenge, which would warrant our interference.  This appeal, being devoid
\nof merits, is, accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C. Padma & Anr on 12 September, 2003 Author: J Sema Bench: S.N. Variava, H.K. Sema. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5764 of 1997 PETITIONER: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. RESPONDENT: C. Padma & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/09\/2003 BENCH: S.N. VARIAVA & H.K. […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180335","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C. Padma & Anr on 12 September, 2003 - 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\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C. Padma & Anr on 12 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-02T00:52:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C. Padma & Anr on 12 September, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-02T00:52:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2426,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003\",\"name\":\"The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C. Padma & Anr on 12 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-02T00:52:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C. Padma & Anr on 12 September, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C. Padma & Anr on 12 September, 2003 - 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\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C. Padma & Anr on 12 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-02T00:52:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C. Padma & Anr on 12 September, 2003","datePublished":"2003-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-02T00:52:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003"},"wordCount":2426,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003","name":"The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C. Padma & Anr on 12 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-02T00:52:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-padma-anr-on-12-september-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C. Padma & Anr on 12 September, 2003"}]},{"@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\/180335","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=180335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180335\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}