{"id":20485,"date":"2008-05-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008"},"modified":"2016-09-28T00:03:24","modified_gmt":"2016-09-27T18:33:24","slug":"united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008","title":{"rendered":"United India Insurance vs Anil Kumar Sahu on 8 May, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">United India Insurance vs Anil Kumar Sahu on 8 May, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH: BILASPUR      \n\n\n                    M.A. No. 784 of 2003\n\n\n                      United    India    Insurance\n                       Company    Limited\n\n                      ...Petitioners\n                           Versus\n\n                   1.  Anil  Kumar Sahu\n\n\n                    2.  Kisanlal Sahu\n\n\n                    3.  Leelaram   Devangan\n\n                               ...Respondents\n\n!      Shri Sanjay S. Agarwal\n\n^      Shri Raja Sharma\n\n\n\n    Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh,J\n\n Dated:08\/05\/2008 \n\n: Jugdment \n\n                            ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>                   (Passed on 08.05.2008)<\/p>\n<p>      The insurer has filed this appeal against  the<br \/>\naward  dated 13.5.2003 in claims case No.74\/1999  by<br \/>\nthe IVth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,<br \/>\nDurg (CG) (henceforth the `Tribunal), whereby in  an<br \/>\ninjury case, compensation of Rs.2,47,009\/- has  been<br \/>\nawarded  jointly and severally against the appellant<br \/>\nand  the  respondents No.1 &amp; 2 i.e. driver sand  the<br \/>\nowner of the motor cycle bearing No. MP 24-EB\/5029.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)  Despite service of notice, respondent No. Leela<br \/>\nRam Dewangan\/claimant did not contest this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)   Admittedly,  on 8.9.1998, the respondent  No.3<br \/>\nLeela  Ram  Dewangan was riding on his scooter  from<br \/>\nDurg  to  Urla.   He was carrying  a  bag  of  sugar<br \/>\nweighing  about 15 Kgs near his feet.  It  was  also<br \/>\nnot  disputed  by the claimant in the Tribunal  that<br \/>\nthe accident occurred on a curve.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)   The  Tribunal  considered the  fact  that  the<br \/>\nclaimant  was carrying a bag containing  15  Kgs  of<br \/>\nsugar near his feet on the scooter and held that  to<br \/>\nsome  extent, the claimant was also responsible  for<br \/>\nthe  accident.   However, it did not  apportion  the<br \/>\ncompensation   awarded   between   the    respondent<br \/>\nNo.3\/claimant on the one hand and the appellant  and<br \/>\nrespondents  No.1  &amp; 2 on the other.   The  Tribunal<br \/>\nawarded  compensation of Rs. 2,47,009\/- jointly  and<br \/>\nseverally  against the appellant and the respondents<br \/>\nNo.1  &amp; 2 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date<br \/>\nof  application till realisation. The Tribunal  also<br \/>\nordered  that if the compensation was not  deposited<br \/>\nwithin  two  months, the appellant  and  respondents<br \/>\nNo.1  &amp; 2 herein shall also be jointly and severally<br \/>\nliable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount<br \/>\nawarded.\n<\/p>\n<p>(5)    The  respondent  No.1\/driver  and  respondent<br \/>\nNo.2\/owner of the motor cycle No. M.P.24-EB\/5029 did<br \/>\nnot prefer any appeal or cross objection against the<br \/>\naward.\n<\/p>\n<p>(6)   The appellant\/insurer preferred the appeal  on<br \/>\nthe following grounds:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     a.   that,  the  Tribunal acted illegally<br \/>\n          and\/or with material irregularity in<br \/>\n          fastening  the  liability  upon  the<br \/>\n          insurance company.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     b.   the  respondent No.1\/driver did  not<br \/>\n          posses  valid  driving  licence   to<br \/>\n          drive  a  motorcycle on the date  of<br \/>\n          accident.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     c.   that,  in  view of the finding  that<br \/>\n          the   respondent   No.3   was   also<br \/>\n          responsible for the accident to some<br \/>\n          extent,  compensation ought to  have<br \/>\n          been apportioned by the Tribunal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>(7)   Learned counsel for the appellant\/insurer  did<br \/>\nnot dispute that permission under Section 170 of the<br \/>\nMotor Vehicle Act to contest the claim on all or any<br \/>\nof  the  grounds that are available  to  the  person<br \/>\nagainst whom the claim was preferred, was not sought<br \/>\nby the insurer form the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>(8)    Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant\/insurer<br \/>\nargued  that in view of the finding recorded by  the<br \/>\nTribunal that the respondent No.3\/claimant was  also<br \/>\nresponsible to some extent in causing the  accident,<br \/>\nthe liability to pay compensation ought to have been<br \/>\napportioned by the Tribunal.  It was also urged that<br \/>\nthe  Tribunal  failed to notice that  the  permanent<br \/>\ndisability  certificate (Ex.P-7)  on  the  basis  of<br \/>\nwhich  a  finding  that claimant had  sustained  50%<br \/>\npermanent  disability was recorded, was obtained  by<br \/>\nthe  claimant from Dr. G.S. Thakur after filing  the<br \/>\napplication  for compensation under Section  166  of<br \/>\nthe  Motor Vehicles Act.  It was also urged that the<br \/>\nTribunal   did  not  record  any  finding  regarding<br \/>\nculpable  negligence of the respondent No.1  in  the<br \/>\naccident.   It was further urged that  due  to  non-<br \/>\nexamination     of    Dr.    G.S.    Thakur,     the<br \/>\nappellant\/insurer  did not have any  opportunity  to<br \/>\ncross  examine  Dr. G.S. Thakur on the  question  of<br \/>\npermanent   disability  having  been   suffered   by<br \/>\nrespondent No.3\/claimant.  Lastly, it was urged that<br \/>\nthe  admission by respondent No.3\/claimant that  the<br \/>\naccident  occurred  on  a  curve  and  that  he  was<br \/>\ncarrying  a bag load of 15 Kgs sugar near his  feet,<br \/>\nthe  Tribunal  ought to have held that the  accident<br \/>\noccurred  due  to the negligence of  the  respondent<br \/>\nNo.3\/claimant.  Ground No.(b) mentioned  in  para  6<br \/>\n(supra) was not pressed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(9)   Shri Raja Sharma, counsel appearing on  behalf<br \/>\nof respondents No.1 &amp; 2 adopted the arguments of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the appellant and submitted that<br \/>\neven  though the respondents No.1 &amp; 2 did not prefer<br \/>\nany  cross  objection, this Court  had  jurisdiction<br \/>\nunder  order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC to pass any order<br \/>\nwhich ought to have been passed by the Tribunal  for<br \/>\ndoing complete justice between the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>(10) Having considered the rival submissions, I have<br \/>\nperused  the record.  <a href=\"\/doc\/694935\/\">In National Insurance  Company<br \/>\nLtd. Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others AIR<\/a><br \/>\n2002  Supreme  Court 3350, the Apex  Court  held  as<br \/>\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n<pre>                   xxxxxxxx               xxxxxxxxxx\nxxxxxxxxxx  \n\n<\/pre>\n<p>     &#8220;17. Before  proceeding  further,  it  may   be<br \/>\n          noticed  that  while `The  Motor  Vehicles<br \/>\n          Act,  1939&#8242; was in force, Section      110\n<\/p>\n<p>          -C  (2A) was inserted therein in the  year<br \/>\n          1970  which corresponds to Section 170  of<br \/>\n          the 1988 Act.  The said provision provides<br \/>\n          that in course of an inquiry of a claim if<br \/>\n          the Tribunal is satisfied that there is  a<br \/>\n          collusion  between the  claimant  and  the<br \/>\n          insured  or  the insured fails to  contest<br \/>\n          the claim, the Tribunal for reasons to  be<br \/>\n          recorded  in  writing,  direct  that   the<br \/>\n          insurer  who may be liable in  respect  of<br \/>\n          such  claim, shall be impleaded as a party<br \/>\n          to  the  proceeding  and  the  insurer  so<br \/>\n          impleaded  shall thereupon  have,  without<br \/>\n          prejudice  to the provisions contained  in<br \/>\n          sub-section (2) of Section 149, the  right<br \/>\n          to  contest the claim on all or any of the<br \/>\n          grounds  that are available to the  person<br \/>\n          against whom the claim has been made.\n<\/p>\n<p>     18.  The aforesaid provisions show two aspects.\n<\/p>\n<p>          Firstly,   that  the  insurer   has   only<br \/>\n          statutory  defences available as  provided<br \/>\n          in sub-section (2)  of Section 149 of 1988<br \/>\n          Act  and, secondly, where the Tribunal  is<br \/>\n          of  the  view  that there is  a  collusion<br \/>\n          between  the claimant and the insured,  or<br \/>\n          the  insured does not contest  the  claim,<br \/>\n          the  insurer  can be made a party  and  on<br \/>\n          such  impleadment the insurer  shall  have<br \/>\n          all  defences available to it.  Then comes<br \/>\n          the   provisions  of  Section  173   which<br \/>\n          provides  for an appeal against the  award<br \/>\n          given by the Tribunal.  Under Section 173,<br \/>\n          any  person  aggrieved  by  an  award   is<br \/>\n          entitled  to prefer an appeal to the  High<br \/>\n          Court.  Very often the question has arisen<br \/>\n          as  to  whether an insurer is entitled  to<br \/>\n          file an appeal on the grounds available to<br \/>\n          the   insured  when  either  there  is   a<br \/>\n          collusion  between the claimants  and  the<br \/>\n          insured or when the insured has not  filed<br \/>\n          an    appeal   before   the   High   Court<br \/>\n          questioning  the quantum of  compensation.<br \/>\n          The consistent view of this court had been<br \/>\n          that  the insurer has no right to file  an<br \/>\n          appeal   to   challenge  the  quantum   of<br \/>\n          compensation or finding of the Tribunal as<br \/>\n          regards  the  negligence  or  contributory<br \/>\n          negligence of offending vehicle.\n<\/p>\n<p>          Xxxxxxxxx     xxxxxxxxxx        xxxxxxxxxx<br \/>\n          xxxxxxxxxxx<\/p>\n<p>     26.  For  the aforesaid reasons, an insurer  if<br \/>\n          aggrieved  against an award, may  file  an<br \/>\n          appeal only on those grounds and no other.<br \/>\n          However, by virtue of Section 170  of  the<br \/>\n          1988  Act,  where in course of an  enquiry<br \/>\n          the  Claims Tribunal is satisfied that (a)<br \/>\n          there  is  a collusion between the  person<br \/>\n          making a claim and the person against whom<br \/>\n          the  claim has been made or (b) the person<br \/>\n          against  whom the claim has been made  has<br \/>\n          failed  to contest the claim, the tribunal<br \/>\n          may,   for  reasons  to  be  recorded   in<br \/>\n          writing, implead the insurer and  in  that<br \/>\n          case it is permissible for the insurer  to<br \/>\n          contest  the  claim also  on  the  grounds<br \/>\n          which  are available to the insured or  to<br \/>\n          the person against whom the claim has been<br \/>\n          made.  Thus, unless an order is passed  by<br \/>\n          the  tribunal  permitting the  insurer  to<br \/>\n          avail  the grounds available to an insured<br \/>\n          or  any other person against whom a  claim<br \/>\n          has  been made on being satisfied  of  the<br \/>\n          two conditions specified in Section 170 of<br \/>\n          the  Act,  it  is not permissible  to  the<br \/>\n          insurer  to  contest  the  claim  on   the<br \/>\n          grounds which are available to the insured<br \/>\n          or  to  a person against whom a claim  has<br \/>\n          been made.  Thus where condition precedent<br \/>\n          embodied  in Section 170 is satisfied  and<br \/>\n          award  is adverse to the interest  of  the<br \/>\n          insurer, the insurer has a right  to  file<br \/>\n          an   appeal  challenging  the  quantum  of<br \/>\n          compensation or negligence or contributory<br \/>\n          negligence  of the offending vehicle  even<br \/>\n          if  the  insured has not filed any  appeal<br \/>\n          against   the   quantum  of  compensation.<br \/>\n          Sections 149, 170 and 173 are part of  one<br \/>\n          Scheme   and  if  we  give  any  different<br \/>\n          interpretation to Section 172 of the  1988<br \/>\n          Act,  the  same would go contrary  to  the<br \/>\n          Scheme and object of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<pre>          Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx               xxxxxxxxxxxx\n          xxxxxxxxxxxxx\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>     32.  For  the aforesaid reasons, our answer  to<br \/>\n          the question is that even if no appeal  is<br \/>\n          preferred under Section 173 of 1988 Act by<br \/>\n          an   insured  against  the  award   of   a<br \/>\n          Tribunal,  it  is not permissible  for  an<br \/>\n          insurer to file an appeal questioning  the<br \/>\n          quantum   of  compensation  as   well   as<br \/>\n          findings   as   regards   negligence    or<br \/>\n          contributory  negligence of the  offending<br \/>\n          vehicle.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>(11)  In  view  of  the  fact  that  admittedly  the<br \/>\nappellant did not make any application under Section<br \/>\n170  of  the Motor Vehicles Act before the  Tribunal<br \/>\nfor  permission to contest the claim on all  grounds<br \/>\nthat  were  available to the insured, the appeal  by<br \/>\nthe  insurance company on the ground of  quantum  or<br \/>\nnegligence   or  contributory  negligence   is   not<br \/>\ntenable.   The owner and driver not having preferred<br \/>\nany  appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal<br \/>\nand the appeal by the insurer not being tenable, the<br \/>\nsubmission  made  by  the learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\nrespondents No.1 &amp; 2 is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>(13)  In view of the above, the appeal has no  merit<br \/>\nand is accordingly dismissed<br \/>\n                                            JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court United India Insurance vs Anil Kumar Sahu on 8 May, 2008 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH: BILASPUR M.A. No. 784 of 2003 United India Insurance Company Limited &#8230;Petitioners Versus 1. Anil Kumar Sahu 2. Kisanlal Sahu 3. Leelaram Devangan &#8230;Respondents ! Shri Sanjay S. Agarwal ^ Shri Raja Sharma Hon&#8217;ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb [&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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20485","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>United India Insurance vs Anil Kumar Sahu on 8 May, 2008 - 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\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"United India Insurance vs Anil Kumar Sahu on 8 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-27T18:33:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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\\\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"United India Insurance vs Anil Kumar Sahu on 8 May, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-27T18:33:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1568,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008\",\"name\":\"United India Insurance vs Anil Kumar Sahu on 8 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-27T18:33:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"United India Insurance vs Anil Kumar Sahu on 8 May, 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":"United India Insurance vs Anil Kumar Sahu on 8 May, 2008 - 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\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"United India Insurance vs Anil Kumar Sahu on 8 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-27T18:33:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"United India Insurance vs Anil Kumar Sahu on 8 May, 2008","datePublished":"2008-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-27T18:33:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008"},"wordCount":1568,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008","name":"United India Insurance vs Anil Kumar Sahu on 8 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-27T18:33:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-vs-anil-kumar-sahu-on-8-may-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"United India Insurance vs Anil Kumar Sahu on 8 May, 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\/20485","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=20485"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20485\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}