{"id":212219,"date":"2008-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008"},"modified":"2016-03-23T02:54:44","modified_gmt":"2016-03-22T21:24:44","slug":"ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.United India Insurance Co. &#8230; vs Kanagamani on 3 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S.United India Insurance Co. &#8230; vs Kanagamani on 3 April, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 03\/04\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nC.M.A.No.1094 of 2001\nand\nC.M.P.No.13853 of 2001 and 649 of 2002\n\nM\/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nBranch Office at Door No.50-1,\nS.N.High Road, Tirunelveli\nrep. by its Branch Manager\t\t.. Appellant\n\nVs\n\n1.Kanagamani\n2.Jebaseeli\n3.Sipti Renuka\n4.Minor Jenitta Roset\n5.Minor Yogannal Mebal\n  (R4 and R5 rep. by\n   their mother R1)\n6.R.Jebaraj\t\t    \t\t .. Respondents\t\t\t    \t\t\n\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the\nJudgement and Decree dated 30.01.2001 passed in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2000 by the\nlearned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional Subordinate Judge,\nTirunelveli.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t... Mr.Joseph Jawahar\n\n^For RR1 to 5\t\t... Mr.T.Selvakumaran\n\t\t\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis appeal is focussed as against the Judgement and Decree dated<br \/>\n30.01.2001 passed in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2000 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims<br \/>\nTribunal cum I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the<br \/>\nlearned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and notice to R6 is<br \/>\ndispensed with as he remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The Tribunal vide Judgement dated 30.01.2001 awarded compensation to a<br \/>\ntune of Rs.2,69,500\/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty nine thousand and five hundred<br \/>\nonly) under the following sub-heads:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor loss of income\t-Rs.2,60,000.00<br \/>\n\tFor funeral expenses\t-Rs.   2,000.00<br \/>\n\tFor loss of consortium\t-Rs.   5,000.00<br \/>\n\tFor loss of estate\t-Rs.   2,500.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.2,69,500.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Anim adverting upon the liability as well as the quantum of<br \/>\ncompensation awarded by the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed on the<br \/>\nfollowing main grounds:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe multiplier 13 chosen by the Tribunal is on the higher side and the<br \/>\nmonthly income of the deceased building contractor aged about 50 years old,<br \/>\ntaken as Rs.2500\/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) is also on the<br \/>\nhigher side and accordingly he prayed for reduction of the compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant\/Insurance Company would submit that even though the appeal was<br \/>\nfocussed on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having<br \/>\ndriving licence; yet on subsequent investigation it was found that the driver of<br \/>\nthe offending vehicle had proper driving licence and accordingly the appellant<br \/>\nis not pressing for that ground and he presses only for reducing the quantum of<br \/>\ncompensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded &#8216;just<br \/>\ncompensation&#8217;?\n<\/p>\n<p>7. On point:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned counsel for the appellant\/Insurance Company would pray for<br \/>\nreducing the quantum of compensation on the ground that the deceased might not<br \/>\nhave earned a sum of Rs.2500\/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) per<br \/>\nmonth as during the year 1999, a building contractor could not have earned that<br \/>\nmuch amount and the multiplier chosen 13 also is on the higher side, whereas the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5\/claimants would echo the cri de<br \/>\ncoeur of the claimants and submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by<br \/>\nthe Tribunal is on the lower side; for the loss of consortium a meagre sum of<br \/>\nRs.5000\/- (Rupees five thousand only) was awarded instead of awarding a sum of<br \/>\nRs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and under the caption loss of love and<br \/>\naffection no compensation at all was awarded.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The Tribunal in my opinion correctly assessed the monthly income of the<br \/>\ndeceased building contractor, in a sum of Rs.2500\/- (Rupees two thousand and<br \/>\nfive hundred only) during the year 1999.  The deceased aged about 50 years years<br \/>\nold, without even earning a sum of Rs.2500\/- (Rupees two thousand and five<br \/>\nhundred only) per month, so to say at the rate of Rs.85\/- (Rupees fifty only)<br \/>\nper day, might not have been able to maintain his family and as such no<br \/>\ninterference with such finding is warranted.  It is a trite proposition of law<br \/>\nthat 1\/3 of the income should be deducted towards the expenditure which the<br \/>\ndeceased would have incurred for maintaining himself had he been alive<br \/>\nirrespective of the fact whether the deceased lead the life of a Bohemian or<br \/>\nthat of a Spartan.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The multiplier 13 chosen in my opinion warrants no interference for the<br \/>\nreason that here the wife and the children of the deceased are the claimants and<br \/>\nunless such multiplier is chosen, a significant compensation cannot be computed,<br \/>\nwhich would be of some succour to the claimants.  I am fully aware of the fact<br \/>\nthat in all cases the multiplier as found suggested in the Second Schedule<br \/>\nappended to the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be taken as conclusive but in this<br \/>\ncase the multiplicand is low and unless the multiplier is in parimateria with<br \/>\nthe Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants would not<br \/>\nbe able to get succour throughout their life.  Hence, the compensation under the<br \/>\ncaption loss of dependency awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.2,60,000\/-<br \/>\n(Rupees two lakhs and sixty thousand only) is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Towards funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.2000\/- (Rupees two thousand<br \/>\nonly) was awarded, which could be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5\/claimants appositely<br \/>\nand appropriately highlighted that the compensation under the caption loss of<br \/>\nconsortium could be enhanced to Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten thousand only) because<br \/>\nthe first claimant is a young widow and hence she deserves compensation of<br \/>\nRs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten thousand only) under the caption loss of consortium.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Towards loss of love and affection, no compensation was awarded, in my<br \/>\nopinion for each children at least a sum of Rs.5000\/- (Rupees five thousand<br \/>\nonly) could be awarded and it comes to Rs.20,000\/- (Rupees ten thousand only).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. Under the caption loss of estate Rs.2500\/- (Rupees two thousand and<br \/>\nfive hundred only) was awarded, which is not based on evidence and hence that<br \/>\nstands deleted.  Accordingly, the compensation is modified as under:<br \/>\n\tFor loss of income\t-Rs.2,60,000.00<br \/>\n\tFor funeral expenses\t-Rs.   2,000.00<br \/>\n\tFor loss of consortium\t-Rs.  10,000.00<br \/>\n\tFor loss of love and<br \/>\n\t\taffection\t-Rs.  20,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\tTotal\t-Rs.3,92,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. Even though, no cross appeal has been filed, nonetheless considering<br \/>\nthe fact that the Tribunal failed in awarding just compensation, I am of the<br \/>\nview that it could be enhanced by invoking Order XLI, Rule 33 of C.P.C. and<br \/>\nenhance the compensation amount. At this juncture, my mind is redolent with the<br \/>\ndecision of the Hon&#8217;ble Three Judges&#8217; Bench of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court, in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/47966\/\">Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others<\/a> reported in 2003 ACJ 12 could be cited<br \/>\nhere.  An excerpt from it would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Firstly, under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as &#8216;the M.V. Act&#8217;), there is no restriction that compensation could<br \/>\nbe awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant.  In an appropriate<br \/>\ncase where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal\/court considers that<br \/>\nclaimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may<br \/>\npass such award.  Only embargo is-it should be &#8216;just&#8217; compensation, that is to<br \/>\nsay, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the<br \/>\nevidence.  This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the<br \/>\nM.V. Act.  Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out<br \/>\nof an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out<br \/>\nof the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so<br \/>\narising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury;<br \/>\nor (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the<br \/>\naccident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by<br \/>\nany agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives of the deceased, as the case may be.  Under the proviso to sub-<br \/>\nsection(1), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as<br \/>\nthe claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for<br \/>\ncompensation.  Other important part of the said section is sub-section (4) which<br \/>\nprovides that &#8220;the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded<br \/>\nto it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation<br \/>\nunder this Act&#8221;.  Hence, Claims Tribunal in appropriate case can treat the<br \/>\nreport forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such<br \/>\nclaim is made or no specified amount is claimed&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. The Tribunal awarded 12% interest p.a.; considering the prevailing<br \/>\nrate at that time, the interest awarded is reduced to 9% p.a.<\/p>\n<p>\t16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the<br \/>\naward of the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,69,500\/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty<br \/>\nnine thousand and five hundred only) to Rs.2,92,000\/- (Rupees two lakhs and<br \/>\nninety two thousand only), which shall carry interest at the rate of 9% from the<br \/>\ndate of M.C.O.P. till deposit.  Proportionately there will be variation in the<br \/>\nallotments in favour of each of the claimants depending upon the variation in<br \/>\nthe total compensation awarded herein.  No costs.  Consequently, the connected<br \/>\nM.Ps. are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>smn<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum<br \/>\nthe I Additional Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nTirunelveli.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M\/S.United India Insurance Co. &#8230; vs Kanagamani on 3 April, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03\/04\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.No.1094 of 2001 and C.M.P.No.13853 of 2001 and 649 of 2002 M\/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office at Door No.50-1, S.N.High Road, Tirunelveli rep. by [&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-212219","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 Co. ... vs Kanagamani on 3 April, 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\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008\" \/>\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 Co. ... vs Kanagamani on 3 April, 2008 - 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-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-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=\"2008-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-22T21:24:44+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\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.United India Insurance Co. &#8230; vs Kanagamani on 3 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-22T21:24:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1428,\"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-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.United India Insurance Co. ... vs Kanagamani on 3 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-22T21:24:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.United India Insurance Co. &#8230; vs Kanagamani on 3 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S.United India Insurance Co. ... vs Kanagamani on 3 April, 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\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.United India Insurance Co. ... vs Kanagamani on 3 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-22T21:24:44+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\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.United India Insurance Co. &#8230; vs Kanagamani on 3 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-22T21:24:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008"},"wordCount":1428,"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-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008","name":"M\/S.United India Insurance Co. ... vs Kanagamani on 3 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-22T21:24:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-united-india-insurance-co-vs-kanagamani-on-3-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.United India Insurance Co. &#8230; vs Kanagamani on 3 April, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212219","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=212219"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212219\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212219"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212219"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}