{"id":184634,"date":"2005-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005"},"modified":"2015-02-03T14:59:27","modified_gmt":"2015-02-03T09:29:27","slug":"national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005","title":{"rendered":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mrs. Kanti Devi &amp; Ors on 9 May, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mrs. Kanti Devi &amp; Ors on 9 May, 2005<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3197 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMrs. Kanti Devi &amp; Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/05\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; S.H. KAPADIA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.22703 of 2003)<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as the &#8216;insurer&#8217;) calls in question legality of<br \/>\nthe judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi<br \/>\nHigh Court dismissing the appeal filed by it.\n<\/p>\n<p>Questioning the award made by the Motor Accident Claims<br \/>\nTribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (in short &#8216;MACT&#8217;), the<br \/>\nappeal was filed before the High Court. By the aforesaid<br \/>\naward the MACT had held that the respondent no.1 Mrs. Kanti<br \/>\nDevi (hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;claimant&#8217;) was<br \/>\nentitled to compensation of Rs.2,24,800\/- together with 8%<br \/>\ninterest from the date of filing of claim petition under<br \/>\nSection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short &#8216;the<br \/>\nAct&#8217;) i.e. 30.11.1998 till realization of the award<br \/>\nexcluding certain periods (i.e. from 30.11.1998 to 1.8.2000<br \/>\nand 10.9.2001 to 4.2.2002). The insurer was held liable to<br \/>\ncompensate the claimant.\n<\/p>\n<p>Background facts as projected by the claimant in the<br \/>\nclaim petition were that her son Pradeep Kumar lost his life<br \/>\non 4.10.1998 on account of vehicular accident involving Tata<br \/>\nTempo No. DL-1-B-8441 which was allegedly being driven<br \/>\nrashly and negligently by Rohani Prasad respondent no.2<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;driver&#8217;). The deceased was<br \/>\naged about 22 years at the time of the accident. The<br \/>\noffending vehicle belonged to Devender Kumar, (respondent<br \/>\nno.3) (hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;insured&#8217;). Before the<br \/>\nTribunal the driver and the owner did not appear.\n<\/p>\n<p>Stand of the insurer before the MACT was that the<br \/>\ndriver did not possess a valid driving licence, as the<br \/>\ndriving licence authorised driving of light motor vehicles<br \/>\n(private), while driver was driving a transport vehicle<br \/>\n(Tata Truck-407).  The MACT held that there was nothing to<br \/>\nshow that the driving licence was fake and that plying of<br \/>\nthe vehicle involved amounted to breach of conditions of the<br \/>\ninsurance policy issued by the insurer.  It was held that<br \/>\nthe insurer was to satisfy the award, with right of recovery<br \/>\nfrom the insured. This part of observation of the MACT which<br \/>\nled to fastening of liability on the insurer was challenged<br \/>\nbefore the High Court. By the impugned order the High Court<br \/>\ndismissed the appeal holding that in view of the decision of<br \/>\nthis Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/726134\/\">United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and<br \/>\nOrs.<\/a> (2003 (3) SCC 338) the insurance company cannot escape<br \/>\nits liability to pay compensation to the claimant when it<br \/>\nhas been given right to recover the compensation from the<br \/>\ninsured.\n<\/p>\n<p>In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant submitted that the High Court&#8217;s view is untenable<br \/>\nin view of what has been said by a three-Judge Bench<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1827019\/\">National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.<br \/>\nSwaran Singh and Ors.<\/a> (2004 (3) SCC 297). There is no<br \/>\nappearance on behalf of the respondents in spite of service<br \/>\nof notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>In Swaran Singh&#8217;s case (supra) this Court dealt with<br \/>\nscope and ambit of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) vis-`-vis proviso<br \/>\nappended to sub-section (4) and sub-section(5) thereof.<br \/>\nWhile dealing with cases where the driver who has been<br \/>\ngranted licence for one type of vehicle at the relevant time<br \/>\nwas driving another type of vehicle. In para 89 it was<br \/>\nobserved as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Section 3 of the Act casts an<br \/>\nobligation on a driver to hold an effective<br \/>\ndriving licence for the type of vehicle which<br \/>\nhe intends to drive.  Section 10 enables the<br \/>\nCentral Government to prescribe forms of<br \/>\ndriving licences for various categories of<br \/>\nvehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of the<br \/>\nsaid section.  The various types of vehicles<br \/>\ndescribed for which a driver may obtain a<br \/>\nlicence for one or more of them are: (a)<br \/>\nmotorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with<br \/>\ngear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor<br \/>\nvehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road<br \/>\nroller, and (g) motor vehicle of other<br \/>\nspecified description.  The definition clause<br \/>\nin Section 2 of the Act defines various<br \/>\ncategories of vehicles which are covered in<br \/>\nbroad types mentioned in sub-section (2) of<br \/>\nSection 10.  They are &#8220;goods carriage&#8221;,<br \/>\n&#8220;heavy goods vehicle&#8221;, &#8220;heavy passenger<br \/>\nmotor vehicle&#8221;, &#8220;invalid carriage&#8221;, &#8220;light<br \/>\nmotor vehicle&#8221;, &#8220;maxi-cab&#8221;, &#8220;medium goods<br \/>\nvehicle&#8221;, &#8220;medium passenger motor<br \/>\nvehicle&#8221;, &#8220;motor-cab&#8221;, &#8220;motorcycle&#8221;,<br \/>\n&#8220;omnibus&#8221;, &#8220;private service vehicle&#8221;,<br \/>\n&#8220;semi-trailer&#8221;, &#8220;tourist vehicle&#8221;,<br \/>\n&#8220;tractor&#8221;, &#8220;trailer&#8221; and &#8220;transport<br \/>\nvehicle&#8221;.  In claims for compensation for<br \/>\naccidents, various kinds of breaches with<br \/>\nregard to the conditions of driving licences<br \/>\narise for consideration before the Tribunal<br \/>\nas a person possessing a driving licence for<br \/>\n&#8220;motorcycle without gear&#8221;, [sic may be<br \/>\ndriving a vehicle] for which he has no<br \/>\nlicence.  Cases may also arise where a holder<br \/>\nof driving licence for &#8220;light motor<br \/>\nvehicle&#8221; is found to be driving a &#8220;maxi-<br \/>\ncab&#8221;, &#8220;motor-cab&#8221; or &#8220;omnibus&#8221; for which<br \/>\nhe has no licence.  In each case, on evidence<br \/>\nled before the Tribunal, a decision has to be<br \/>\ntaken whether the fact of the driver<br \/>\npossessing licence for one type of vehicle<br \/>\nbut found driving another type of vehicle,<br \/>\nwas the main or contributory cause of<br \/>\naccident.  If on facts, it is found that the<br \/>\naccident was caused solely because of some<br \/>\nother unforeseen or intervening causes like<br \/>\nmechanical failures and similar other causes<br \/>\nhaving no nexus with the driver not<br \/>\npossessing requisite type of licence, the<br \/>\ninsurer will not be allowed to avoid its<br \/>\nliability merely for technical breach of<br \/>\nconditions concerning driving licence.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In para 101 the effect of a driving licence being found<br \/>\nfake was considered.  It was noted as followed:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The submission of Mr. Salve that in<br \/>\nLehru case, this Court has, for all intent<br \/>\nand purport, taken away the right of an<br \/>\ninsurer to raise a defence that the licence<br \/>\nis fake does not appear to be correct.  Such<br \/>\ndefence can certainly be raised but it will<br \/>\nbe for the insurer to prove that the insured<br \/>\ndid not take adequate care and caution to<br \/>\nverify the genuineness or otherwise of the<br \/>\nlicence held by the driver.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Obviously, defence can be raised by the insurer about<br \/>\nthe licence being fake. By analogy, the insurer can also<br \/>\ntake a defence that the driver did not have the requisite<br \/>\ndriving licence to drive a particular type of vehicle.  Such<br \/>\ndefence can be raised and it will be for the insurer to<br \/>\nprove that the insured did not take adequate care and<br \/>\ncaution to verify genuineness or otherwise of the licence<br \/>\nheld by the driver. The effect of the evidence in this<br \/>\nregard has to be considered by the concerned Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the instant case, the High Court did not go into the<br \/>\nrelevant questions at all and relying on Lehru&#8217;s case<br \/>\n(supra) held that the insurer has to pay the amount and<br \/>\nrecover from the insured.  It has to be noted that in Swaran<br \/>\nSingh&#8217;s case (supra) the earlier decision in Lehru&#8217;s case<br \/>\n(supra) was noted.  In para 108 of the judgment it was noted<br \/>\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Although, as noticed hereinbefore,<br \/>\nthere are certain special leave petitions<br \/>\nwherein the persons having the vehicles at the<br \/>\ntime when the accidents took place did not<br \/>\nhold any licence at all, in the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, we do not intend to<br \/>\nset aside the said awards.  Such awards may<br \/>\nalso be satisfied by the petitioners herein<br \/>\nsubject to their right to recover the same<br \/>\nfrom the owners of the vehicles in the manner<br \/>\nlaid down therein.  But this order may not be<br \/>\nconsidered as a precedent.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The essence of Lehru&#8217;s case (supra) was delineated in<br \/>\nparas 92 and 100 as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;92. It may be true as has been<br \/>\ncontended on behalf of the petitioner that a<br \/>\nfake or forged licence is as good as no<br \/>\nlicence but the question herein, as noticed<br \/>\nhereinbefore, is whether the insurer must<br \/>\nprove that the owner was guilty of the<br \/>\nwilful breach of the conditions of the<br \/>\ninsurance policy or the contract of<br \/>\ninsurance.  In Lehru&#8217;s case the matter has<br \/>\nbeen considered in some detail.  We are in<br \/>\ngeneral agreement with the approach of the<br \/>\nBench but we intend to point out that the<br \/>\nobservations made therein must be understood<br \/>\nto have been made in the light of the<br \/>\nrequirements of the law in terms whereof the<br \/>\ninsurer is to establish wilful breach on the<br \/>\npart of the insured and not for the purpose<br \/>\nof its disentitlement from raising any<br \/>\ndefence or for the owners to be absolved<br \/>\nfrom any liability whatsoever.  We would be<br \/>\ndealing in some detail with this aspect of<br \/>\nthe matter a little later.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;100. This Court, however, in Lehru<br \/>\nmust not be read to mean that an owner of a<br \/>\nvehicle can under no circumstances have any<br \/>\nduty to make any enquiry in this respect.<br \/>\nThe same, however, would again be a question<br \/>\nwhich would arise for consideration in each<br \/>\nindividual case.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The decision in Swaran Singh&#8217;s case (supra) was not<br \/>\nbefore either the MACT or the High Court when the respective<br \/>\norders were passed.  Therefore, we think it proper to remit<br \/>\nthe matter to the MACT for fresh consideration. It shall<br \/>\npermit the parties to lead such further evidence as they may<br \/>\nintend to lead.  The matter shall be decided keeping in view<br \/>\nthe principle enunciated by this Court in Swaran Singh&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase (supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>Keeping in view long pendency of the matter, the MACT<br \/>\nwould do well to dispose of the matter within six months<br \/>\nfrom today.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as<br \/>\nto costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mrs. Kanti Devi &amp; Ors on 9 May, 2005 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3197 of 2005 PETITIONER: National Insurance Co. Ltd RESPONDENT: Mrs. Kanti Devi &amp; Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/05\/2005 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; S.H. KAPADIA JUDGMENT: [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-184634","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mrs. Kanti Devi &amp; Ors on 9 May, 2005 - 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-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005\" \/>\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 Mrs. Kanti Devi &amp; Ors on 9 May, 2005 - 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-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-03T09:29:27+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=\"8 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-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mrs. Kanti Devi &amp; Ors on 9 May, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-03T09:29:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1591,\"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\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005\",\"name\":\"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mrs. Kanti Devi &amp; Ors on 9 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-03T09:29:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mrs. Kanti Devi &amp; Ors on 9 May, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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 Mrs. Kanti Devi &amp; Ors on 9 May, 2005 - 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-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mrs. Kanti Devi &amp; Ors on 9 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-03T09:29:27+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mrs. Kanti Devi &amp; Ors on 9 May, 2005","datePublished":"2005-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-03T09:29:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005"},"wordCount":1591,"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\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005","name":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mrs. Kanti Devi &amp; Ors on 9 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-03T09:29:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-mrs-kanti-devi-ors-on-9-may-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mrs. Kanti Devi &amp; Ors on 9 May, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/184634","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=184634"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184634\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184634"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184634"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184634"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}