{"id":207977,"date":"2008-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-12-03T06:32:42","modified_gmt":"2018-12-03T01:02:42","slug":"united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"United India Insurance Company … vs Rukmani And Others on 14 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
United India Insurance Company … vs Rukmani And Others on 14 July, 2008<\/div>\n
                               1\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n                        AT JODHPUR\n\n\n                       JUDGMENT\n\nUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.           Vs. SMT. RUKMANI\n                                              & ORS.\n\n\n           S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 92 OF 1997\n           against    the   judgment    and award\n           dated 02.11.95 passed by    the learned\n           Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,\n           Ratangarh, District Churu in Claim Case\n           No.31\/94.\n\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT                    ::      14th JULY, 2008\n\n                          PRESENT\n\n          HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANAK MOHTA\n\nMr. G.Vaishnav for the appellant.\n\nMr. S.L.Jain     ] for the respondents.\nMr. G.L.Khatri   ]\n\n\nBY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
           This appeal has been filed by the United India<\/p>\n
Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award<\/p>\n
dated 02.11.1995 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident<\/p>\n
Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh, District Churu (in short ‘the<\/p>\n
Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.31\/1994 whereby the learned
\n                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
Judge has allowed the claim petition and has awarded<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.1,83,000\/- with interest @ 12% per annum<\/p>\n
in favour of the claimants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      This claim petition by Smt.Rukmani Devi & Ors. was<\/p>\n
originally filed before the District & Sessions Judge, Churu on<\/p>\n
28.04.88 from where it was transferred to the court of Motor<\/p>\n
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Churu.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on<\/p>\n
24.12.1987 at 11.00 PM Dharamchand (deceased)                   and<\/p>\n
several other passengers       were going from       Sujangarh to<\/p>\n
Bodasar by travelling in Jeep No.RRT.3104 which was being<\/p>\n
driven by Jeevanmal owner of the said jeep. It was submitted<\/p>\n
that Dharamchand (deceased) was sitting in the front seat.<\/p>\n
When the jeep reached         about four Kms. from      Gopalpura<\/p>\n
Dungar, it was being driven with a high speed and near a turn,<\/p>\n
the driver of the jeep lost his control as a result of that the jeep<\/p>\n
overturned and fell into a pit resulting into causing grievous<\/p>\n
injuries to the head of Dharamchand, who was immediately<\/p>\n
admitted in the Government Hospital, Sujangarh where he was<\/p>\n
declared dead due to brain hemorrhage caused in said
\n                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
accident. An FIR of this incident was lodged at P.S. Sujangarh.<\/p>\n
            The claimants, Smt. Rukmani, wife of Dharamchand<\/p>\n
(deceased), and Mamta, Manisha, Seema, minor daughters of<\/p>\n
Dharamchand filed claim petition under Section 110-A of the<\/p>\n
Motor Vehicle Act 1939 (in short ‘the Act’). It was stated that<\/p>\n
Dharamchand (deceased),was at the time of accident aged 32<\/p>\n
years and was plying his own taxi thereby was making an<\/p>\n
earning of Rs.1500-1600\/- per month. The claimants were<\/p>\n
dependent on his income it was submitted that due to untimely<\/p>\n
death of Dharamchand in motor accident they have suffered<\/p>\n
loss of income and     loss of love and affection. Thus, the<\/p>\n
claimants claimed a total compensation of Rs.6,34,000\/- on<\/p>\n
various heads.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     Non-claimant No.1 Jeevanmal, owner cum driver of<\/p>\n
offending jeep, though was served with the notice, neither he<\/p>\n
filed any   reply nor appeared before the Tribunal, therefore,<\/p>\n
ex parte proceedings was initiated against him. Non-claimant<\/p>\n
No.2 insurer of jeep United India Insurance Co. in its reply<\/p>\n
stated that their liability for the payment of compensation was<\/p>\n
limited upto Rs.15,000\/- only and further denied all other the
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
averments made in the claim petition. It was also stated that<\/p>\n
the offending Jeep was being driven by vehicle-owner<\/p>\n
Jeevanmal (non-claimant No.1) but at the time of accident he<\/p>\n
was not having a valid and effective driving licence, as such,<\/p>\n
the Insurance Company cannot be held responsible for the<\/p>\n
payment of compensation and it was prayed that the claim<\/p>\n
petition may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           On the basis of pleadings of the parties, relevant<\/p>\n
issues with regard to responsibility of causing accident and<\/p>\n
quantum of compensation were framed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           During trial, on behalf of claimants AW\/1 Rukmani<\/p>\n
Devi,   (claimant    No.1),     AW\/2       Bhagwanaram,     AW\/3<\/p>\n
Hanumanmal, AW\/4 Bhanwarlal and AW\/5 Girdhari                were<\/p>\n
examined and        certain documents were produced and got<\/p>\n
exhibited . No evidence was led from the side of non-claimant.<\/p>\n
           After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal<\/p>\n
on the basis of material available on record, held non-appellant<\/p>\n
No.1 responsible     for causing accident and further held that<\/p>\n
the non-claimants are         jointly and severally liable for the
\n                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
payment of compensation to the claimants and as the vehicle<\/p>\n
was found insured with appellant Insurance Company at that<\/p>\n
time, therefore, has directed the Insurance Company to make<\/p>\n
payment of compensation amount of Rs.1,83,000\/- to the<\/p>\n
claimants with interest @ 12% per annum.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the judgment<\/p>\n
and award dated 02.11.1995, the instant appeal has been<\/p>\n
preferred by the appellant-United India Insurance Co. Limited,<\/p>\n
before this Court. Notice of the appeal was issued, record was<\/p>\n
called.   In the meanwhile, the claimant-respondents also filed<\/p>\n
cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC, for the<\/p>\n
enhancement of compensation amount. Thus, both            were<\/p>\n
heard together, and are being disposed of by this judgment.<\/p>\n
            During the course of arguments, learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellant, insurer, submitted that    in this case the<\/p>\n
learned tribunal has not properly considered the facts and the<\/p>\n
material available on record and passed erroneous judgment.<\/p>\n
It was contended that no proper opportunity even was given to<\/p>\n
appellant to lead evidence in defence. Thus, the appellant has<\/p>\n
been deprived from putting his case. It was urged that on this
\n                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
ground, the judgment is liable to be set aside. It was further<\/p>\n
contended that during trial, cover note Ex.4 was produced by<\/p>\n
owner of the vehicle and as per terms of the cover note, the<\/p>\n
liability of the Insurance Company was limited upto 15,000\/-<\/p>\n
but the learned tribunal has ignored to peruse the terms of the<\/p>\n
policy and held responsible for the payment of entire amount<\/p>\n
of compensation. It was stated that in this way, issue No.4<\/p>\n
should have been decided in favour of the appellant. It was<\/p>\n
also   contended    that   learned   tribunal      has   awarded<\/p>\n
compensation on higher side. It was urged that without any<\/p>\n
basis, the learned tribunal has totally assessed income and on<\/p>\n
that basis, loss of dependency has been determined. Thus,<\/p>\n
that is not sustainable. It was also agitated that likewise 12%<\/p>\n
rate of interest has been awarded, that is on higher side,<\/p>\n
thus, the awarded compensation is not sustainable. On the<\/p>\n
basis of these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal may<\/p>\n
be allowed and the judgment and award, holding responsibility<\/p>\n
of Insurance Company, be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant<\/p>\n
respondents, refuted the contentions and        submitted that the<\/p>\n
appellant raised contentions with regard to limited liability but
\n                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
later on they have not been able to prove their contentions. In<\/p>\n
this   respect,   a specific issue No.4    was framed      and the<\/p>\n
burden of proving limited liability was on them, but they failed. It<\/p>\n
was also contended that from mere perusal of the cover note,<\/p>\n
this contention cannot be treated to be proved. The learned<\/p>\n
tribunal has rightly rejected their contentions, there is no scope<\/p>\n
for interference in this respect. It was also contended that the<\/p>\n
awarded compensation is not just and reasonable. It was also<\/p>\n
contended on behalf of claimant-widow of the deceased that<\/p>\n
her husband was, by profession, a driver and he used to earn<\/p>\n
Rs.1500\/- 1600\/- per month, but the learned tribunal has not<\/p>\n
accepted her version. As there were no rebuttal from the other<\/p>\n
side, therefore, the income of the deceased should have been<\/p>\n
determined accordingly.      But the learned tribunal has first<\/p>\n
assessed    monthly income of Rs,1000\/- and after deducting<\/p>\n
expenses for his personal use, Rs.700\/- has been determined<\/p>\n
as his monthly income, this requires to be modified . It was<\/p>\n
further contended that learned tribunal has taken into<\/p>\n
consideration the future prospect of job . Thus, to this extent<\/p>\n
has rightly doubled the loss of dependency. In the meanwhile, it<\/p>\n
was also contended that the learned tribunal has not properly<\/p>\n
applied multiplier, looking to the age of the deceased that is
\n                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
32 years, the multiplier    of at least 17 should have been<\/p>\n
applied. Thus, the awarded         loss    of dependency       of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,68,000\/-     be enhanced        reasonably. It was also<\/p>\n
contended, while making submissions with regard to the cross<\/p>\n
objection filed on behalf of respondent-claimants, that learned<\/p>\n
tribunal has granted a meagre amount of compensation , first<\/p>\n
the compensation under the head of loss of dependency has<\/p>\n
not been properly determined. Further, the claimants are the<\/p>\n
widow and three daughters of tender age           of deceased.<\/p>\n
Therefore, looking to the peculiar facts of the case, appropriate<\/p>\n
amount should have been granted with regard to loss of love<\/p>\n
and affection and loss of guardianship and loss of consortium.<\/p>\n
But the learned tribunal has awarded only Rs.15,000\/- in all.<\/p>\n
On the basis of    these submissions it was prayed that the<\/p>\n
appeal filed by the Insurance Company may          be dismissed<\/p>\n
and the cross objection filed by the claimant respondents be<\/p>\n
allowed and the awarded compensation may be enhanced.<\/p>\n
     I have considered the rival submissions and perused<\/p>\n
the findings and the conclusion drawn thereon.<\/p>\n
     The main questions arise for consideration in dealing
\n                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
with the appeal and the cross-objection are that whether the<\/p>\n
Insurance Company has been wrongly         held responsible for<\/p>\n
the payment of compensation ?.         Secondly, the awarded<\/p>\n
compensation is not just and reasonable and it requires to be<\/p>\n
enhanced, while considering the cross objection ?<\/p>\n
      So far as the finding with regard to factum of accident is<\/p>\n
concerned, I have perused the finding of learned tribunal, that<\/p>\n
is not suffering from any infirmity and has not been disputed,<\/p>\n
thus that is maintained. Now first of all, I have considered the<\/p>\n
contentions placed by the appellant insurer. On the pleading<\/p>\n
of parties , a specific issue No.4, was framed and the burden<\/p>\n
of proving that issue was on the insurer on the point of<\/p>\n
limited liability. But they have not led any evidence in that<\/p>\n
respect. Neither they have made submissions before the<\/p>\n
learned tribunal for producing any evidence in this respect nor<\/p>\n
any   specific material was placed, therefore, the contention<\/p>\n
placed by the insurer are not sustainable in this respect. In the<\/p>\n
alternative, it was also contended that, from the perusal of the<\/p>\n
cover note, the plea of limited liability was found proved. In<\/p>\n
this respect, I have perused Ex. 6. From the perusal      of the<\/p>\n
cover note, it seems that they have received the premium of
\n                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
passengers, thus no such adverse inference can be drawn.<\/p>\n
Thus, the contentions       raised in this     appeal are not<\/p>\n
sustainable. The appellant has also    raised contentions with<\/p>\n
regard to     quantum of compensation. But considering their<\/p>\n
status and contentions, they are not sustainable. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
appeal filed by the Insurance Company          is liable to be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      Now I have considered the contentions raised by the<\/p>\n
claimant-respondents, with regard to enhancement         of the<\/p>\n
awarded compensation. In this respect, I have perused the<\/p>\n
statement of AW\/1 Rukmani Devi, widow of the deceased. In<\/p>\n
her   statement, she has stated that     her husband was by<\/p>\n
profession, driver and he used to earn Rs.1500\/- – 1600\/- per<\/p>\n
month. To this extent, neither there is cross examination from<\/p>\n
the insurer’s side,   nor   any material has been placed in<\/p>\n
rebuttal. The income shown by the widow       of the deceased<\/p>\n
does not seem      to be excessive. But the learned tribunal,<\/p>\n
without    any base, has determined     monthly income of the<\/p>\n
deceased as Rs.1000\/- and thereafter, considering the future<\/p>\n
prospect     had determined compensation, considering the net<\/p>\n
loss of dependency of Rs.1400\/- and again the learned
\n                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
tribunal has taken the multiplier of 10 and determined loss of<\/p>\n
dependency        as Rs.1,68,000\/-. But considering         the<\/p>\n
submissions, the amount determined by the tribunal under this<\/p>\n
head, is not found proper and adequate. It is established on<\/p>\n
record that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased<\/p>\n
was 32 years, that is also corroborated by the age shown in<\/p>\n
the post mortem report. Thus, suitable multiplier of 17 should<\/p>\n
have been taken. Therefore, taking into consideration       the<\/p>\n
income shown by the widow of the deceased, Rs.1500\/-        per<\/p>\n
month, and after taking 1\/3 for personal use, atleast Rs.1,000\/-<\/p>\n
per month can safely be assessed as loss of dependency to<\/p>\n
the claimants, looking to the nature of job, there are no ground<\/p>\n
for doubling the income of deceased. Thus,       compensation<\/p>\n
comes to 1000x12x17= Rs.2,04,000\/-. Thus, the awarded<\/p>\n
amount of compensation under this head, is enhanced by<\/p>\n
Rs.36,000\/-. Further, learned tribunal has awarded total<\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/- for loss of consortium, love and affection to the<\/p>\n
claimants. Taking into consideration the age of widow, and the<\/p>\n
tender age of three female children that is ranged between 4<\/p>\n
to   10, at the time of filing of   application, the amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/- is further added in the amount awarded by the
\n                                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
tribunal. Thus, total amount of Rs.51,000\/- is enhanced and<\/p>\n
that comes to Rs.2,34,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The claimant respondents, further will be entitled to get<\/p>\n
interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 7.5% from the<\/p>\n
date of filing of the appeal. In this way, the cross-objection filed<\/p>\n
by the claimant respondents, deserves to be partly allowed.<\/p>\n
      On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed<\/p>\n
by the insurer, is hereby disallowed and the cross objection<\/p>\n
filed by the claimant respondents        are partly allowed. The<\/p>\n
awarded compensation          of Rs.1,83,000\/- is enhanced by<\/p>\n
Rs.51,000\/-, that comes to Rs.2,34,000\/-. Further           on the<\/p>\n
enhanced amount , claimants respondents will be entitled to<\/p>\n
receive interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of<\/p>\n
the   claim    application.   For    payment     of      enhanced<\/p>\n
compensation, owner as well as the insurer of the vehicle are<\/p>\n
held jointly and severally responsible. In the interest of justice,<\/p>\n
the Insurance Company is directed         to make the payment<\/p>\n
within two months from the date of order, or deposit the same<\/p>\n
with the learned Tribunal, failing which claimants will be free to<\/p>\n
start recovery proceedings. Rest of the judgment is maintained.
\n                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                             ( MANAK MOHTA ),J.\n<\/p>\n
l.george\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur United India Insurance Company … vs Rukmani And Others on 14 July, 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SMT. RUKMANI & ORS. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 92 OF 1997 against the judgment and award dated 02.11.95 […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-207977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nUnited India Insurance Company ... vs Rukmani And Others on 14 July, 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\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-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 Company ... vs Rukmani And Others on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-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=\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-03T01:02:42+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=\"11 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-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"United India Insurance Company … vs Rukmani And Others on 14 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-03T01:02:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2194,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008\",\"name\":\"United India Insurance Company ... vs Rukmani And Others on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-03T01:02:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"United India Insurance Company … vs Rukmani And Others on 14 July, 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 Company ... vs Rukmani And Others on 14 July, 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\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"United India Insurance Company ... vs Rukmani And Others on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-03T01:02:42+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"United India Insurance Company … vs Rukmani And Others on 14 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-03T01:02:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008"},"wordCount":2194,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008","name":"United India Insurance Company ... vs Rukmani And Others on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-03T01:02:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-rukmani-and-others-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"United India Insurance Company … vs Rukmani And Others on 14 July, 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\/207977","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=207977"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207977\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}