{"id":186066,"date":"2003-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003"},"modified":"2017-08-26T22:05:43","modified_gmt":"2017-08-26T16:35:43","slug":"ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.United India Insurance &#8230; vs Muthulakshmi on 22 January, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S.United India Insurance &#8230; vs Muthulakshmi on 22 January, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 22\/01\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.JAYASIMHA BABU\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN\n\nL.P.A.No.101 of 2000\n\nM\/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd.,\nby its Divisional Manager, Tuticorin.           ...     Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Muthulakshmi\n2. Radhakrishnan\n3. M\/s.Star Match Factory\n   a registered partnership\n   firm by its partner,\n   R.Selvaraj.                                  ...   Respondents.\n\n        L.P.A.  filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1997 made  in\nA.S.No.712  of  1984  on the file of this Court filed against the judgment and\ndecree dated 27.10.1983 made in O.S.No.51 of 1982 on the file  of  Sub  Court,\nSrivilliputhur.\n\n!For appellant  ::  Mr.B.T.Seshadri for Mr.R.Vedantham\n\n^For respondents        ::  Mr.  K.Yamunan for R1 &amp; R2\n                        No appearance for R3.\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>                The plaintiff  is  the  appellant.  The defendants 1 and 2 are<br \/>\nthe legal heirs of of  one  K.R.Raman  who  carried  on  the  goods  transport<br \/>\nbusiness in the name and style, Sri Velmurugan Transport at Sattur.  The third<br \/>\ndefendant  booked  a  consignment  on  15.6.1979  with the said Sri Velmurugan<br \/>\nTransport  for  transporting  certain  bundles   of   matches   from   Mudukku<br \/>\nMeendanpatti village,  Sattur  taluk  to  Lalithapur,  Maharashtra State.  The<br \/>\ngoods were transported by Sri Velmurugan Transport through its lorry  and  the<br \/>\nlorry  on its way to the destination overturned and fell and on account of the<br \/>\nheavy impact due to the said fall, the match bundles loaded in the  lorry  got<br \/>\nfire and  the entire match bundles were completely burnt.  The third defendant<br \/>\nwho booked the consignment informed the plaintiff of  the  accident  and  also<br \/>\ngave a notice to the proprietor of Sri Velmurugan Transport claiming the value<br \/>\nof the  goods  lost  in  the fire.  The proprietor of Sri Velmurugan Transport<br \/>\ndisowned his liability.  Since the goods were insured with  the  plaintiff  by<br \/>\nthe  third defendant under Transit Insurance Scheme, the plaintiff settled the<br \/>\nclaim of the third defendant by payment of a sum  of  Rs.75,530\/-,  being  the<br \/>\nvalue of the damages goods on 10.12.1979.  The third defendant executed on the<br \/>\nsame  day a letter of Subrogation in favour of the plaintiff and also executed<br \/>\na Special Power of Attorney authorising the plaintiff to take necessary  legal<br \/>\nproceedings  on  behalf  of  it  against  the  proprietor  of  Sri  Velmurugan<br \/>\nTransport.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  The proprietor of Sri Velmurugan Transport, Raman died and<br \/>\nhis legal representatives were shown as defendants 1 and 2 in the  suit  along<br \/>\nwith  the  owner of the consignment, namely, the third defendant on the ground<br \/>\nthat the third defendant was colluding with defendants 1 and 2 and evading  to<br \/>\njoin the plaintiff in filing the suit.  Hence, the suit was filed for recovery<br \/>\nof  a sum of Rs.97,106.40 with interest of Rs.75,530\/- from the date of plaint<br \/>\ntill the date of payment.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  The third defendant remained ex  parte  in  the  suit  and<br \/>\ndefendants 1  and  2  contested  the  matter.   The trial Court, after framing<br \/>\nnecessary issues, found that the accident had occurred due to  the  negligence<br \/>\nof the common carrier and it was only due to the negligence on the part of the<br \/>\ndriver, the  accident  had  occurred.   The trial Court also found that on the<br \/>\nbasis of the document, viz., the deed of subrogation (Ex.A-12), the suit filed<br \/>\nby the plaintiff was maintainable, and accordingly, decreed the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  Defendants 1 and 2 preferred an appeal before  this  Court<br \/>\nand  the  learned  Single Judge has found that the tyre of the lorry was burst<br \/>\ndue to the negligence on the part of  the  carrier  as  the  vehicle  was  not<br \/>\nproperly maintained   by  the  carrier.    Learned  single  Judge  accordingly<br \/>\nconfirmed the finding of the trial Court on the  question  of  negligence  and<br \/>\nheld  that  the  accident  had  occurred due to the negligence of the carrier.<br \/>\nLearned Single Judge, however, held that the letter  of  subrogation  did  not<br \/>\namount  to  assignment  of  policy  to  clothe the insurer to claim indemnity.<br \/>\nLearned Single Judge also held that under Ex.A-12 the right assigned was  only<br \/>\na  right  to  sue  and not the right in the property and the suit filed by the<br \/>\nInsurance Company was not maintainable.   Learned  Single  Judge  allowed  the<br \/>\nappeal holding  that the plaintiff has no right to sue in its own name.  It is<br \/>\nagainst the judgment and decree, the present appeal has been preferred.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   We  heard  Mr.B.T.Seshadri,  learned  counsel   for   the<br \/>\nappellant  and  Mr.K.Yamunan,  learned  counsel  for  the respondents 1 and 2.<br \/>\nThough Mr.K.Yamunan, learned counsel for the respondents  submitted  that  the<br \/>\nfinding  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  that  the  loss  occurred due to the<br \/>\nnegligence on the part of the carrier is not sustainable, yet,  we  find  that<br \/>\nthe  trial  Court  as  well  as  the  learned  Single  Judge of this Court, on<br \/>\nappreciation of evidence, has correctly come to the conclusion that  the  loss<br \/>\noccurred due to the negligence on the part of the carrier.  Under section 9 of<br \/>\nthe  Carriers Act, 1865, it is for the common carrier to prove that the damage<br \/>\nis due to the act of God or alien enemies.  The trial Court  and  the  learned<br \/>\nSingle  Judge  have  found  that  the  common  carrier has not proved both the<br \/>\naspects and hence, the liability of the common carrier was not discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  The decision of the Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1907957\/\">PATEL  ROADWAYS  LTD.<br \/>\nv.  BIRLA  YAMAHA LTD.<\/a>  (2000) 4 S.C.C.91) is an authority for the proposition<br \/>\nthat the liability of a common carrier under the Carriers Act is  that  of  an<br \/>\ninsurer,  and  in  the case of claim of damage for loss to or deterioration of<br \/>\ngoods entrusted to a  carrier  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  plaintiff  to<br \/>\nestablish  negligence  and the absolute liability of the carrier is subject to<br \/>\nthe exception where the loss or damage arises from an act  of  God.    In  the<br \/>\ninstance  case,  the  accident  could  have  been averted by certain amount of<br \/>\nforesight of the owner of the common carrier  and  it  is  an  accident  which<br \/>\nresulted from the action of the common carrier and the accident cannot be said<br \/>\nto be  an  act of God.  Accordingly we confirm the said finding of the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the  part  of<br \/>\nthe carrier in not properly maintaining the vehicle in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.   We are also of the view that the learned Single Judge was<br \/>\ncorrect in his view that Ex.A-12 should be  construed  only  as  a  letter  of<br \/>\nsubrogation, though  in  the  deed,  the word, &#8216;assignment&#8217; has been used.  We<br \/>\nhave gone through the document Ex.A-12 and we find that the document does  not<br \/>\namount  to  a  letter  of assignment as under Ex.A-12 what was transferred was<br \/>\nonly a right to sue and there was no transfer of interest in the property.  <a href=\"\/doc\/1106580\/\">In<br \/>\nUNION OF INDIA v.  SRI SARADA MILLS<\/a> ( AIR 1973 S.C.  281)  the  Supreme  Court<br \/>\nhas held that under section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a bare<br \/>\nright  of  action  for  claims  to damages for breach of contract or claims to<br \/>\ndamages for tort cannot be transferred because the law does not recognise  the<br \/>\ntransaction which  may  savour of maintenance of champerty.  The Supreme Court<br \/>\nalso held that when  there  is  only  interest  in  the  subject  matter,  the<br \/>\ntransaction  can  be saved from the imputation of maintenance and the interest<br \/>\nmust exist apart from the assignment and to that extent, must  be  independent<br \/>\nof it.    The  Supreme  Court has held that the subrogation would not give the<br \/>\ninsurer a right to sue in a court of law in his own name as the subrogation is<br \/>\nconcerned solely with the mutual rights and liabilities of the parties to  the<br \/>\ncontract of insurance and it confers no rights and imposes no liabilities upon<br \/>\nthird parties  who  are  strangers  to  the contract.  It is clear that on the<br \/>\nfacts of the  case  the  goods  did  not  exist  on  the  date  of  letter  of<br \/>\nsubrogation.   Hence,  the mere use of the expression, &#8216;assignment of right in<br \/>\nthe property&#8217; in Ex.A-12 does not improve the case of  the  plaintiff  as  the<br \/>\ngoods were  not in existence on that date.  Learned Single Judge was therefore<br \/>\ncorrect in his view that Ex.A-12 does not assign the policy and under  Ex.A-12<br \/>\nonly  a right to sue was transferred which is prohibited under section 6(e) of<br \/>\nthe Transport of Property Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  Though we are of the view that the  learned  Single  Judge<br \/>\nwas  correct  in his view in the construction of the document Ex.A-12, we hold<br \/>\nthat the learned Single Judge overlooked  the  fact  that  the  plaintiff  has<br \/>\nincluded  the  third  defendant  in  the  array of parties to the suit and the<br \/>\nplaintiff has also  claimed  in  the  plaint  that  the  third  defendant  was<br \/>\nimpleaded  as  a  party\/defendant  as  it was evading to join the plaintiff as<br \/>\nco-plaintiff in filing the suit colluding with the defendants 1 and  2.    The<br \/>\nKerala High Court, in a similar circumstance, in <a href=\"\/doc\/1094473\/\">NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.  LTD.<br \/>\nv.   OKAY  TRANSPORT  CORPORATION<\/a>  (1991  ACJ 482) noticed the decision of the<br \/>\nSupreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1106580\/\">Union of India v.  Sri Sarada Mills Ltd.  (AIR<\/a> 1973 SC  281),<br \/>\nparticularly, the following passage to hold that such a suit is maintainable:-\n<\/p>\n<p>                &#8221;  The defence of the Railway Administration was that the mill<br \/>\nrealised from the insurance company the damages and  &#8216;as  such  the  plaintiff<br \/>\n(meaning  thereby  the respondent mill) has no right to claim any such in this<br \/>\naction&#8217;.  If the specific plea of assignment had been  taken  in  the  written<br \/>\nstatement the respondent mill would have impleaded the insurance company.  The<br \/>\nCourt  could have in those circumstances been in a position to afford full and<br \/>\ncomplete relief to the parties.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>We are in respectful agreement with the view  expressed  by  the  Kerala  High<br \/>\nCourt.   It  is  axiomatic  that  the  Court  has the power to afford full and<br \/>\ncomplete relief to the parties when all parties are before the Court.   Though<br \/>\nthe  plaintiff  should have impleaded the insured as a co-plaintiff, since the<br \/>\nthird  defendant  was  not  willing  to  join  the  insurance  company  as   a<br \/>\nco-plaintiff,  the  plaintiff  will  be  taking  a great risk if the the third<br \/>\ndefendant was impleaded as a co-plaintiff or if the suit was instituted on the<br \/>\npower of attorney executed in its favour by the third defendant.    The  third<br \/>\ndefendant  also  remained ex parte in the suit as well as in the appeal before<br \/>\nthis Court.  We are therefore of the view that the Court has the full power to<br \/>\ndo complete justice  between  the  parties  and  the  defence  raised  by  the<br \/>\ndefendants 1 and 2 that the insured is not a co-plaintiff is hypertechnical as<br \/>\nthe  insured  is  before the Court though it figures as one of the defendants.<br \/>\nWe are of the view that when the Court finds that  all  the  parties  who  are<br \/>\ninterested in the suit are before the Court, the Court has the necessary power<br \/>\nto mould  and  grant  the  necessary  reliefs.    The  third defendant has not<br \/>\ndisputed that it had received the money from the plaintiff  in  settlement  of<br \/>\nits  claim,  but  the  act  of  the  third  defendant and its unwillingness to<br \/>\nparticipate in the court proceedings show that it would not  have  joined  the<br \/>\nplaintiff as  coplaintiff.    There  can  be  no  doubt that the Court has the<br \/>\nnecessary power to grant a decree in favour of the third  defendant  and  then<br \/>\ndirect  the  third defendant to pay the money realised out of execution of the<br \/>\ndecree to the plaintiff.  Since the action of the third defendant  establishes<br \/>\nthat   it  was  unwilling  to  participate  in  the  court  proceedings  as  a<br \/>\nco-plaintiff, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met  by<br \/>\ngranting a decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.   Accordingly, the letters patent appeal stands allowed and<br \/>\nthe judgment and decree of the learned Single  Judge  is  set  aside  and  the<br \/>\njudgment and decree of the trial Court is restored, though not for the reasons<br \/>\nstated by  the  trial  Judge  in  his  judgment.  Accordingly, there will be a<br \/>\ndecree in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendants 1 and 2 as  prayed<br \/>\nfor.  The   appellant   succeeds  to  the  above  extent.    However,  in  the<br \/>\ncircumstances, there will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nWebsite:  Yes<br \/>\nna.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Record Keeper, VR.Section, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>((SCO LYRIX 6.1<br \/>\n))<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M\/S.United India Insurance &#8230; vs Muthulakshmi on 22 January, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22\/01\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.JAYASIMHA BABU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN L.P.A.No.101 of 2000 M\/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd., by its Divisional Manager, Tuticorin. &#8230; Appellant -Vs- 1. Muthulakshmi 2. Radhakrishnan 3. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-186066","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S.United India Insurance ... vs Muthulakshmi on 22 January, 2003 - 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\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.United India Insurance ... vs Muthulakshmi on 22 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-26T16:35:43+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.United India Insurance &#8230; vs Muthulakshmi on 22 January, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-26T16:35:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1942,\"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\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.United India Insurance ... vs Muthulakshmi on 22 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-26T16:35:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.United India Insurance &#8230; vs Muthulakshmi on 22 January, 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":"M\/S.United India Insurance ... vs Muthulakshmi on 22 January, 2003 - 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\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.United India Insurance ... vs Muthulakshmi on 22 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-26T16:35:43+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.United India Insurance &#8230; vs Muthulakshmi on 22 January, 2003","datePublished":"2003-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-26T16:35:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003"},"wordCount":1942,"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\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003","name":"M\/S.United India Insurance ... vs Muthulakshmi on 22 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-26T16:35:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-vs-muthulakshmi-on-22-january-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.United India Insurance &#8230; vs Muthulakshmi on 22 January, 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\/186066","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=186066"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186066\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186066"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186066"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186066"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}