{"id":185565,"date":"2008-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008"},"modified":"2015-11-19T23:22:49","modified_gmt":"2015-11-19T17:52:49","slug":"m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"M.Chidambaram vs M\/S.United India Insurance Co. on 4 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M.Chidambaram vs M\/S.United India Insurance Co. on 4 April, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:04\/04\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN\n\nS.A.(MD)No.585 of 2007\n\nM.Chidambaram\t\t\t\t... Appellant\n\nVs.\n\nM\/s.United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,\nrep. by its Divisional Manager,\n457, V.E.Road,\nTuticorin.\t\t\t\t... Respondent\n\n\nPRAYER\n\nSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure\nagainst the judgment and decree in A.S.No.212 of 2003 dated 30.08.2005 on the\nfile of Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, reversing the judgment and decree\nin O.S.No.351 of 2000, dated 17.06.2003 on the file of Subordinate Judge,\nTuticroin.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t... Mr.C.Godwin\n\n^For Respondent\t\t... No Appearance\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\t\tThis appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated
\n30.08.2005 in A.S.No.212 of 2003 on the file of Principal District Judge,
\nTuticorin, reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2003 in O.S.No.351 of
\n2000 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. The suit in O.S.No.351 of 2000 was preferred by the appellant
\nagainst the respondent claiming a sum of Rs.50,000\/- on account of damages
\ncaused to his vehicle on account of accident.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. In the plaint in O.S.No.351 of 2000, it was the case of the
\nappellant that his vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-67-9927 was duly insured
\nwith the respondent for the period in question. The said vehicle was taken for
\nhire to transport cattle to Tenkasi Mattu Santhai on 24.04.1998 by  one
\nDuraipandian and accordingly, while the vehicle was proceeding to the place of
\ndestination, it met with an accident near Pattathur Vilakku Road in Kalugumalai-
\nSankarankoil main road and in the said accident, the vehicle was seriously
\ndamaged. The accident was immediately intimated to the respondent. There was
\nalso a criminal case in respect of the said accident. Since the respondent had
\nrepudiated the claim preferred by the appellant, he was constrained to file a
\ncomplaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tuticorin,
\nclaiming compensation. However, the said claim petition was dismissed with
\ndirection to approach the civil Court for appropriate relief and accordingly, by
\nrestricting the claim to a sum of Rs.50,000\/-, the appellant has preferred the
\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4. The suit was resisted by the respondent and in the written
\nstatement filed by the respondent, though they have  admitted the accident, they
\nrepudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having
\nvalid endorsement to drive transport vehicle. It was further contended that
\nthough the driving licence produced by the driver of the vehicle did contain an
\nendorsement to drive a transport vehicle, the said endorsement was subjected to
\nverification by the Transport Department and it was found that the endorsement
\nwas nothing but fake and as such, as on the date of accident, the driver of the
\nvehicle was not having valid licence. In the said circumstances, the respondent
\ncontended that they are not liable to pay the amount to the appellant and prayed
\nfor dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5. The trial Judge, after framing necessary issues, ultimately
\ndecreed the suit as prayed for, whereby the respondent was directed to pay the
\namount to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6. The judgment and decree dated 17.06.2003 in O.S.No.351 of 2000
\nwas taken up in appeal by the respondent before the Principal District Judge,
\nTuticorin and the learned Judge framed two points for determination and
\nultimately, concluded that the appellant is not entitled to claim damages from
\nthe respondent and accordingly, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the
\njudgment and decree of the Court below.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7. The judgment and decree dated 30.08.2005 in A.S.No.212 of 2003 is
\nthe subject matter of the present appeal at the instance of the unsuccessful
\nplaintiff in O.S.No.351 of 2000 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8. The following substantial question of law arises for
\nconsideration in the present appeal:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“Whether the Insurance Company is entitled to repudiate the claim
\non the ground of absence of endorsement in the non-professional driving licence
\nof the driver to drive goods vehicle?”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9. The appeal came up for final hearing on 02.04.2008 and I have
\nheard Thiru.C.Godwin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Though the
\nname of the counsel for the respondent was found to be shown in the cause-list,
\nthere was no representation on behalf of the respondent and as such, the matter
\nwas passed over in the morning session so as to enable the respondent to make
\nsubmission. When the matter was again called in the afternoon session, there was
\nno representation on behalf of the respondent and accordingly, after hearing the
\narguments of the counsel for the appellant, the judgment was reserved.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
\njudgment and decree of the first appellate Court is clearly perverse, inasmuch
\nas the driver of the vehicle was having a valid driving licence to drive the
\nvehicle and merely because he was not having a licence to drive a transport
\nvehicle, it cannot be contended that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay
\nthe amount in the face of a valid policy subsisting as on the date of the
\naccident.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel and I
\nhave also gone through the judgment and decree of the Court below.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12. The fact that the vehicle owned by the appellant met with an
\naccident on 24.04.1998 is not in dispute. Similarly, it is the admitted position
\nthat the vehicle is covered by a policy issued by the respondent and the said
\npolicy was in full force as on the date of accident. The respondent has
\nrepudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle had no valid
\nendorsement to drive a transport vehicle and as such, there is a clear violation
\nof the policy condition and the respondent is not liable to indemnify the
\nappellant for the loss sustained by him in the accident. In the written
\nstatement filed by the respondent, they have contended that the appellant had,
\nin fact, submitted a copy of the driving licence of the driver, by name Muthu
\nGurusamy for verification and since the respondent was having doubt about the
\ngenuineness of the said document, the driving licence was sent for verification
\nto the Licensing Authority, Kovilpatti. Subsequently, the respondent was
\ninformed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector attached to the office of the Licensing
\nAuthority, Kovilpatti that the entry in the driving licence of the said Muthu
\nGurusamy is a forged one and in fact, the Authorisation Number as found
\nmentioned in the driving licence of the driver of the appellant was granted to
\none Muniappa, S\/o.Mutthappan of Kulathoor.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13. The requisition sent by the respondent to the Lincensing
\nAuthority as well as the verification certificate issued by the Motor Vehicle
\nInspector were marked as Exs.B.4 and B.3 respectively.  Therefore, it is evident
\nthat as on the date on which the vehicle met with the accident, the driver of
\nthe vehicle was not having a valid driving licence to drive goods vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Chapter XI provides for
\ncompulsory insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. As per Section
\n146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no person shall use, except as a passenger or
\ncause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place,
\nunless there is in force in relation to the use of  the vehicle by that person
\nor that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with
\nthe requirements of the said Chapter. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act
\nrelates to the requirement of policy and the limits of liability. Section 149 of
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act provides for satisfying judgments and awards against
\npersons insured in respect of third party risks.  Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the
\nMotor Vehicles Act permits the insurance company to repudiate the claim made by
\nthe insurer, in case the vehicle has been driven at the material time by an
\nunlicensed person or driven by any person, who has been disqualified for holding
\nor obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15. In Jitendra Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.<\/a> reported
\nin JT 2003 (5) SC 538, while considering the question as to whether an insurance
\ncompany can repudiate the claim made by the owner of the vehicle on the ground
\nthat the driver of the vehicle had no driving licence at the material time, the
\nApex Court also considered the binding nature of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the
\nMotor Vehicles Act and observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the insurance
\nCompany to repudiate a claim wherein the vehicle in question is damaged due to
\nan accident to which driver of the vehicle who does not hold a valid driving
\nlicense is responsible in any manner.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t16. In the present case, it is proved by documentary evidence that
\nthe endorsement, as found mentioned in the driving licence of the driver, who
\ndrove the vehicle at the material time, was a forged entry, thereby enabling the
\nrespondent to contend that they are not liable to satisfy the claim made by the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t17. The Apex Court in New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla<\/a>
\nreported in 2001(4) SCC 342 in the context of motor vehicle insurance considered
\nthe invalidity of a forged\/fake licence and held thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“12. As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake
\nlicence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some
\nofficer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of
\nthe Act only empowers any Licensing Authority to “renew a driving licence issued
\nunder the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry”. No
\nLicensing Authority has the power to renew a fake licence and, therefore, a
\nrenewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Any
\ncounterfeit document showing that it contains a purported order of a statutory
\nauthority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that other persons
\nincluding some statutory authorities would have acted on the document
\nunwittingly on the assumption that it is genuine.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The observation of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Hariyana High
\nCourt in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sucha Singh that renewal of a document
\nwhich purports to be a driving licence, will robe even a forged document with
\nvalidity on account of Section 15 of the Act, propounds a very dangerous
\nproposition. It that proposition is allowed to stand as a legal principle, it
\nmay, no doubt, thrill counterfeiters the world over as they would be encouraged
\nto manufacture fake documents in a legion. What was originally a forgery would
\nremain null and void forever and it would not acquire legal validity at any time
\nby whatever process of sanctification subsequently done on it. Forgery is
\nantithesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t18. The Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
\nSwaran Singh<\/a> reported in 2004(3) SCC 297, while considering the various facets
\nof Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of Motor Vehicles Act as well as Section 149(4) and (5)
\nand similar provisions in Chapter-XI observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“84.\tWe have analysed the relevant provisions of the said Act in
\nterms whereof a motor vehicle must be driven by a person having a driving
\nlicence. The owner of a motor vehicle in terms of  Section 5 of the Act has a
\nresponsibility to see that no vehicle is driven except by a person who does not
\nsatisfy the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Act. In a case, therefore, where
\nthe driver of the vehicle, admittedly, did not hold any licence and the same was
\nallowed consciously to be driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person, the
\ninsurer is entitled to succeed in its defence and avoid liability. The matter,
\nhowever, may be different where a disputed question of fact arises as to whether
\nthe driver had a valid licence or where the owner of the vehicle committed a
\nbreach of the terms of the contract of insurance as also the provisions of the
\nAct by consciously allowing any person to drive a vehicle who did not have a
\nvalid driving licence. In a given case, the driver of the vehicle may not have
\nany hand in it at all e.g. a case where an accident takes place owing to a
\nmechanical fault or vis major [See Jitendra Kumar].”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t19. The judgment in Swaran Singh’s case cited supra was followed by
\nthe Apex Court in Punam Devi and Anr. V. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance
\nCo. Ltd., and Ors.<\/a> reported in JT 2004 (3) SC 332.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t20. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai<\/a> reported in 2006(4)
\nSCC 250, the Apex Court in the context of the necessity to have professional
\nlicence to drive a commercial vehicle observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“11. It has not been disputed before us that the vehicle was being used as
\na taxi. It was, therefore, a commercial vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle,
\nthus, was required to hold an appropriate licence therefor. Ram Lal who
\nallegedly was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, as noticed herein
\nbefore, was holder of a licence to drive a light motor vehicle only. He did not
\npossess any licence to drive a commercial vehicle. Evidently, therefore, there
\nwas a breach of condition of the contract of insurance. The appellant,
\ntherefore, could raise the said defence.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t21. In Ashok Gangadhar Maratha vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,<\/a>
\nreported in 1999(5) Scale 346, the Apex Court directed the insurance company to
\npay the compensation without agreeing with the contention of the insurance
\ncompany that the driver was having only LMV licence and the vehicle was used for
\ncarrying goods. This judgment was considered and explained by the Apex Court in
\nNew India Assurance Co. vs. Prabhu Lal<\/a> reported in 2007(13) Scale 588 and more
\nparticularly in paragraphs 31 and 32 and held thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“31. It is no doubt true that in Ashok Gangadhar, in spite of the
\nfact that the driver was holding valid driving licence to ply Light Motor
\nVehicle (LMV), this Court upheld that claim and ordered the Insurance Company to
\npay compensation. But, in our considered opinion, the learned counsel for the
\nInsurance Company is right in submitting that it was because of the fact that
\nthere was neither pleading nor proof as regards the permit issued by the
\nTransport Authority. In absence of pleading and proof, this Court held that, it
\ncould not be said that the driver had no valid licence to ply the vehicle which
\nmet with an accident and he could not be deprived of the compensation. This is
\nclear if one reads paragraph 11 of the Judgement, which reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t11. To reiterate, since a vehicle cannot be used as transport vehicle on a
\npublic road unless there is a permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority
\nfor that purpose, and since in the instance case there is neither a pleading to
\nthat effect by any party nor is there any permit on record, the vehicle in
\nquestion would remain a light motor vehicle. The respondent also does not say
\nthat any permit was granted to the appellant for plying the vehicle as a
\ntransport vehicle under Section 66 of the Act. Moreover, on the date of
\naccident, the vehicle was not carrying any goods, and though it could be said to
\nhave been designed to be used as a transport vehicle or goods-carrier, it cannot
\nbe so held on account of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 66 of
\nthe Act.” (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n
\t32. In our Judgement, Ashok Gangadhar did not lay down that the driver
\nholding license to drive a Light Motor Vehicle need not have an endorsement to
\ndrive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. It was on the
\npeculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance Company neither pleaded nor proved
\nthat the vehicle was transport vehicle by placing on record the permit issued by
\nthe Transport Authority that the Insurance Company was held liable.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t22. The ratio of the decision in Swaran Singh’s case cited supra was
\nconsidered by the Apex Court in Laxmi Narain’s case and the entire laws were
\nagain discussed by the Apex Court in Premkumari vs. Prahlad Dev<\/a> reported in
\n2008(1) Scale 531, wherein it was held thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“8. The effect and implication of the principles laid down in Swaran
\nSingh’s case (supra) has been considered  and explained by one of us (Dr.Justice
\nArijit Pasayat) in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3
\nSCC 700. The following conclusion in para 38 are relevant:
\n\t“38.In view of the above analysis, the following situations emerge:\n<\/p>\n
\t1.The Decision in Swaran Singh case has no application to cases other than
\nthird party risks.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.Where originally the license was a fake one, renewal cannot cure the
\ninherent fatality.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.In case of third-party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount,
\nand if so advised, to recover the same from the insured.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The concept of purposive interpretation has no application to cases
\nrelatable to Section 149 of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\t9. In the subsequent decision, Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd., Vs. Meena
\nVariyal and others, (2007) 5 SCC 428, which is also a two-Judge Bench while
\nconsidering the ratio laid down in Swaran Singh’s case (supra) concluded that in
\na case where a person is not a third party within the meaning of the Act, the
\nInsurance Company cannot be made automatically liable merely by resorting to
\nSwaran Singh’s case (supra). While arriving at such a conclusion the Court
\nextracted the analysis as mentioned in para 38 of Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra) and
\nagreed with the same. In view of consistency, we reiterate the very same
\nprinciple enunciated in Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra) with regard to interpretation
\nand applicability of Swaran Singh’s case (supra)\n<\/p>\n
\t10. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Kusum Rai and others,
\n(2006) 4 SCC 250, the vehicle was being used as a taxi. It was, therefore, a
\ncommercial vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle was required to hold an
\nappropriate licence therefore. Ram Lap, who allegedly was driving the said
\nvehicle at the relevant time, was holder of a licence to drive light motor
\nvehicle only. He did not possess any licence to drive a commercial vehicle.
\nTherefore, there was a breach of condition of the contract of insurance. In such
\ncircumstances, the Court observed that the appellant-National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
\ntherefore, could raise the said defence while considering the stand of the
\nInsurance Company. This Court, pointing out the law laid down in Swaran Singh
\n(supra), concluded that the owner of the vehicle cannot contend that he has no
\nliability to verify the fact as to whether the driver of the vehicle possessed a
\nvalid licence or not. However, taking note of the fact that the owner has not
\nappeared, the victim was aged only 12 years, the claimants are from a poor
\nbackground and to avoid another round of litigation applying the decision in
\nOriental Insurance Co Ltd., Vs. Nanjappan (2004) 13 SCC 224 and finding that
\nthough the appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to pay the claimed amount
\nas the driver was not possessing a valid licence and the High Court committed an
\nerror in holding otherwise, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
\nand in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution declined
\nto interfere with the impugned judgement therein and permitted the appellant-
\nInsurance Company to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t23. In a recent decision in Sardari vs. Sushil Kumar<\/a>  reported in
\n2008(3) Scale 570, the Apex Court considered the contract of insurance, which is
\nin the realm of private law and observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“5. The question, as regards the purport and object for which the Act had
\nbeen enacted and as also the statutory obligations on the part of the owner of
\nthe vehicle to get the same compulsorily insured came up for consideration in a
\nlarge number of cases.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis court, time and again made a distinction between a case where third
\nparty is involved vis-a-vis where the owner of the vehicle was involved in the
\naccident. The matter relating to grant of licence is dealt with in the Act.
\nThere are provisions in terms whereof despite expiry of the period of licence,
\nthe same can be renewed. There are also provisions providing for grant of a
\nfresh licence. In certain situation, the authorities are also entitled to refuse
\nto renew the licence.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Although, in terms of a contract of insurance, which is in the realm of
\nprivate law domain having regard to the object for which Section 147 and 149 of
\nthe Act had been enacted, the social justice doctrine as envisaged in the
\npreamble of the Constitution of India has been given due importance. The Act,
\nhowever, itself provides for the cases where the insurance Company can avoid its
\nliability. Avoidance of such liability would largely depend upon violation of
\nthe conditions of contract of insurance. Where the breach of conditions of
\ncontract is ex-facie apparent from the records, the Court will not fasten the
\nliability on the Insurance Company. In certain situations, however, the Court
\nwhile fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle may direct the
\nInsurance Company to pay to the claimants the awarded amount with liberty to it
\nto recover the same from the owner.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The concurrent finding of fact herein is that Sushil Kumar never held a
\nlicense. The owner of the vehicle has a statutory obligation to see that the
\ndriver of the vehicle whom he authorized to drive the same holds a valid
\nlicense. Here again, a visible distinction may be noticed, viz, where the
\nlicense is fake and a case where the license has expired, although initially
\nwhen the driver was appointed, he had a valid license.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe question came up consideration before this Court in United India
\nInsurance Co.Ltd., Vs.Gian Chand and Others [(1997) 7 SCC 558], wherein, it was
\nheld:\n<\/p>\n
\t“12.Under the circumstances, when the insured had handed over the vehicle
\nfor being driven by an unlicensed driver, the Insurance Company would get
\nexonerated from its liability to meet the claims of the third party who might
\nhave suffered on account of vehicular accident caused by such unlicensed
\ndriver…”\n<\/p>\n
……………………………….”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t24. The documentary evidence produced and exhibited on the side of
\nthe respondent clearly shows that the driver of the vehicle, who drove the same
\nduring the material time, was not having a valid driving licence to drive
\ncommercial vehicle and as such, the Insurance Company is entitled to repudiate
\nthe claim invoking the provisions of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles
\nAct and, therefore, it cannot be said that the first appellate Court erred in
\ninterfering with the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The judgment and
\ndecree of the first appellate Court, which was rendered on the basis of the
\npleadings as well as evidence adduced on the side of the parties, cannot be
\ntermed to be perverse or erroneous warranting interference in second appeal. The
\nsubstantial question of law is accordingly decided against the appellant and in
\nfavour of the respondent. There is no merit in the contention as advanced on the
\nside of the appellant and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t25. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, in the
\nfacts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
SML<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Principal District Judge,
\n  Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Subordinate Judge,
\n  Tuticroin.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M.Chidambaram vs M\/S.United India Insurance Co. on 4 April, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:04\/04\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN S.A.(MD)No.585 of 2007 M.Chidambaram … Appellant Vs. M\/s.United India Insurance Co., Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, 457, V.E.Road, Tuticorin. … Respondent PRAYER Second Appeal filed under Section […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185565","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.Chidambaram vs M\/S.United India Insurance Co. on 4 April, 2008 - 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\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Chidambaram vs M\/S.United India Insurance Co. on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-19T17:52:49+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Chidambaram vs M\\\/S.United India Insurance Co. on 4 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-19T17:52:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3802,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008\",\"name\":\"M.Chidambaram vs M\\\/S.United India Insurance Co. on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-19T17:52:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Chidambaram vs M\\\/S.United India Insurance Co. on 4 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.Chidambaram vs M\/S.United India Insurance Co. on 4 April, 2008 - 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\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Chidambaram vs M\/S.United India Insurance Co. on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-19T17:52:49+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Chidambaram vs M\/S.United India Insurance Co. on 4 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-19T17:52:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008"},"wordCount":3802,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008","name":"M.Chidambaram vs M\/S.United India Insurance Co. on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-19T17:52:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chidambaram-vs-ms-united-india-insurance-co-on-4-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Chidambaram vs M\/S.United India Insurance Co. on 4 April, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185565","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=185565"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185565\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185565"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185565"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185565"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}