{"id":21258,"date":"2011-08-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011"},"modified":"2018-04-15T23:25:55","modified_gmt":"2018-04-15T17:55:55","slug":"national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Kusuma & Anr on 23 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Kusuma & Anr on 23 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: D Jain<\/div>\n
Bench: D.K. Jain, R.M. Lodha<\/div>\n
                                                                                               REPORTABLE\n\n                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                  CIVIL APPEAL NO.      7212               OF 2011\n\n                     (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.17905 of 2008)\n\n\n\n\nNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.                                 --      APPELLANT\n\n\n                                           VERSUS\n\n\nKUSUMA & ANR.                                                  --       RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n                                    J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
D.K. JAIN, J.:\n<\/p>\n
1. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.    Challenge   in   this   appeal,   by   special   leave,   is   to   the   legality   and <\/p>\n
      validity of the judgment and order dated 17th January, 2008, delivered <\/p>\n
      by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, whereby the High Court <\/p>\n
      has   allowed   the   appeal   preferred   by   respondent   No.1   herein, <\/p>\n
      enhancing   the   compensation   awarded   to   her   by   the   Motor   Accident <\/p>\n
      Claims Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) constituted under the Motor <\/p>\n
      Vehicles   Act,   1988   (for   short   “the   Act”)   to  `1,80,000\/-   along   with <\/p>\n
      interest @ 6% per annum.\n<\/p>\n
3.    To   appreciate   the   controversy,   the   factual   matrix   in   a   nutshell   is   as <\/p>\n
      under :\n<\/p>\n
          On 28th June 1995, the car in which Mrs. Kusuma, respondent No.1 <\/p>\n
in this appeal (hereinafter  referred to as “the claimant”), aged about 36 <\/p>\n
years, was travelling from Sullia to Puttur collided with a Bus owned by <\/p>\n
Karnataka   State   Road   Transport   Corporation,   respondent   No.2   herein.\n<\/p>\n
Due   to   the   impact   of   the   accident,   the   claimant   and   others   sustained <\/p>\n
injuries.  The claimant, who was 30 weeks pregnant, suffered a fatal blow <\/p>\n
on the stomach.   She was admitted in the hospital, where an X-ray and <\/p>\n
scanning of the foetus showed that the baby had died inside the uterus.\n<\/p>\n
On an induced delivery, the following day she delivered a still born baby.\n<\/p>\n
The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before <\/p>\n
the   Tribunal,   Mangalore,   making   a   claim   of  `2,00,000\/-   with   cost   and <\/p>\n
interest   at   12%,   towards   the   expenses   incurred   on   medical   treatment, <\/p>\n
mental shock,  pain and loss of child.\n<\/p>\n
4.    The Tribunal vide award dated 5th  October 2004,  inter alia,  held that <\/p>\n
      loss   of   foetus   on   account   of   injury   sustained   by   the   claimant   in   the <\/p>\n
      accident was akin to the death of a child of a tender age.  Relying on a <\/p>\n
      decision of the Karnataka High Court, wherein the Court had awarded <\/p>\n
      a   compensation   of  `25,000\/-   towards   the   loss   of   affection   and <\/p>\n
      `25,000\/- towards the loss of estate on the death of a child of less than <\/p>\n
                                                                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
      1 year of age in an accident, the Tribunal allowed the claim in part and <\/p>\n
      awarded a compensation of an amount of `50,000\/- towards the loss of <\/p>\n
      unborn   child   and   a   further   sum   of  `10,000\/-   towards   pain   and <\/p>\n
      sufferings   to   the   claimant,   along   with   an   interest   @   6%   per   annum <\/p>\n
      from   18th  November   1995   i.e.   the   date   of   institution   of   the   claim <\/p>\n
      petition till the date of deposit\/payment.  The Insurance Company, the <\/p>\n
      appellant in this appeal, was directed to pay the said compensation to <\/p>\n
      the   claimant,   in   order   to   indemnify   the   owner   of   the   car.     Claim <\/p>\n
      petition against the owner of the Bus was rejected.\n<\/p>\n
5. Dissatisfied   with   the   quantum   of   compensation   awarded   by   the <\/p>\n
      Tribunal, the claimant filed an appeal before the High Court, seeking <\/p>\n
      enhancement   of   the   aforesaid   compensation.     Pertinently,   the <\/p>\n
      Insurance Company did not question the award.\n<\/p>\n
6.    Applying   the   principle   indicated   by   this   Court   in  New   India  <\/p>\n
      Assurance   Company   Ltd.  Vs.  Satender   &   Ors.1,  in   relation   to <\/p>\n
      assessment of quantum of compensation on the death of a child in an <\/p>\n
      accident, the High Court, by a short judgment allowed the appeal in <\/p>\n
      part   and   enhanced   the   compensation   to   a   consolidated   amount   of <\/p>\n
      `1,80,000\/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition <\/p>\n
      till the date of payment.\n<\/p>\n
1 (2006) 13 SCC 60<\/p>\n
                                                                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
7. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company is before us in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
8.    At the time of issuing notice to the respondents, at the first blush, it <\/p>\n
      was   felt   that   the   appeal   involved   a   very   important   question   of   law, <\/p>\n
      namely, whether an unborn child (foetus) while still in mother’s womb <\/p>\n
      can   be   considered   to   be   a   child   for   the   purpose   of   claiming <\/p>\n
      compensation under Section 166 of the Act and, therefore, Mr. Uday <\/p>\n
      U. Lalit, Senior Advocate, was requested to assist the Court as Amicus <\/p>\n
      Curiae. Accordingly, we heard Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, learned counsel <\/p>\n
      appearing for the appellant and the learned Amicus Curiae on the said <\/p>\n
      issue.     However,   having   closely   examined   the   fact-situation   as <\/p>\n
      emerging from the record, we are convinced that the appellant cannot <\/p>\n
      be permitted to raise the aforesaid issue. In the present  case, having <\/p>\n
      chosen   not   to   question   the   correctness   of   the   award   made   by   the <\/p>\n
      Tribunal, determining the amount of compensation “towards the loss <\/p>\n
      of unborn child”,  the  appellant-Insurance  Company is  now  estopped <\/p>\n
      from   contending   that   an   unborn   child   cannot   be   considered   to   be   a <\/p>\n
      child for the purpose of claiming compensation under Section 166 of <\/p>\n
      the Act.  It is manifest from the impugned judgment that the question <\/p>\n
      for consideration before the High Court in claimant’s appeal was with <\/p>\n
      regard   to   the   quantum   of   compensation   and   not   the   entitlement   of <\/p>\n
                                                                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
      claim for grievous injury to a 30 weeks old child in utero resulting in <\/p>\n
      the birth of a still born child.\n<\/p>\n
9.    Thus, under the given circumstances, the question that survives for our <\/p>\n
      consideration is whether the quantum of compensation determined by <\/p>\n
      the High Court, at a lump sum amount of  `1,80,000\/-, for the loss of <\/p>\n
      still born child, treating it as a child, and towards pain and sufferings <\/p>\n
      to the respondent-claimant awarded by the Tribunal at  `50,000\/- and <\/p>\n
      `10,000\/- respectively, warrants interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
10. On receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166 <\/p>\n
      of the Act, Section 168 of the Act casts an obligation on the Tribunal <\/p>\n
      to determine the amount of compensation “which appears to it to be <\/p>\n
      just”.     The  expression  “which   appears  to  it  to  be  just”   gives  a  wide <\/p>\n
      discretion to the Tribunal to determine the compensation which in the <\/p>\n
      opinion of the Tribunal is “just”.  Explaining the meaning of the word <\/p>\n
      “just” as appearing in Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, <\/p>\n
      which was in  pari materia  with Section 168 of the Act, this Court in <\/p>\n
      Helen   C.   Rebello   &   Ors.  Vs.  Maharashtra   State   Road   Transport  <\/p>\n
      Corporation & Anr.2 observed thus :\n<\/p>\n
         “The   word   “just”,   as   its   nomenclature,   denotes <\/p>\n
         equitability,   fairness   and   reasonableness   having   a   large <\/p>\n
         peripheral   field.     The   largeness   is,   of   course,   not <\/p>\n
2 (1999) 1 SCC 90<\/p>\n
                                                                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
       arbitrary; it is restricted by the conscience which is fair, <\/p>\n
       reasonable   and   equitable,   if   it   exceeds;   it   is   termed   as <\/p>\n
       unfair,   unreasonable,   unequitable,   not   just.   Thus,   this <\/p>\n
       field of wider discretion of the Tribunal has to be within <\/p>\n
       the   said   limitations   and   the   limitations   under   any <\/p>\n
       provision   of  this   Act   or   any   other   provision   having   the <\/p>\n
       force of law.”\n<\/p>\n
11. Thus, the word “just” connotes something which is equitable, fair and <\/p>\n
   reasonable,  conforming to  rectitude   and  justice   and not  arbitrary.     It <\/p>\n
   may be  true that Section 168 of the Act confers a wide discretion  on <\/p>\n
   the   Tribunal   to   determine   the   amount   of   compensation   but   this <\/p>\n
   discretion is also coupled with a duty to see that this exercise is carried <\/p>\n
   out   rationally   and   judiciously     by   accepted   legal   standards   and   not <\/p>\n
   whimsically and arbitrarily, a concept unknown to public law.     The <\/p>\n
   amount of compensation awarded is not expected to be a windfall or <\/p>\n
   bonanza for the victim or his dependent, as the case may be, but at the <\/p>\n
   same time it should not be niggardly or a pittance. Thus, determination <\/p>\n
   of “just”  amount of compensation  is beset  with difficulties,  more so <\/p>\n
   when the deceased happens to be an infant\/ child because the future of <\/p>\n
   a child is full of glorious uncertainties. In the case of death of an infant <\/p>\n
   many   imponderables,   like   life   expectancy   of   the   deceased,   his <\/p>\n
   prospects   to   earn,   save,   spend   and   distribute   have   to   be   taken   into <\/p>\n
   account.     It   is   quite   possible   that   there   may   be   no   actual   pecuniary <\/p>\n
   benefit which may be derived by his parents during the life time of the <\/p>\n
                                                                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
   child.  But at the same time that cannot be a ground to reject the claim <\/p>\n
   of   the   parents,   albeit   they   establish   that   they   had   reasonable <\/p>\n
   expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived.   The question <\/p>\n
   whether there exists a reasonable expectation  of pecuniary benefit is <\/p>\n
   always   a   mixed   question   of   fact   and   law   but   a   mere   speculative <\/p>\n
   possibility   of   benefit   is   not   sufficient.     In  Satender   &   Ors.  (supra), <\/p>\n
   relied   upon   by   the   High   Court,   while   dealing   with   a   claim   for <\/p>\n
   compensation under the Act in relation to the death of a nine year old <\/p>\n
   child in a truck accident, this Court had observed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
       “9.   There   are   some   aspects   of   human   life   which   are <\/p>\n
       capable   of   monetary   measurement,   but   the   totality   of <\/p>\n
       human life is like the beauty of sunrise or the splendor of <\/p>\n
       the   stars,   beyond   the   reach   of   monetary   tape-measure. <\/p>\n
       The  determination  of damages  for loss of human life is <\/p>\n
       an   extremely   difficult   task   and   it   becomes   all   the   more <\/p>\n
       baffling   when   the   deceased   is   a   child   and\/or   a   non-<\/p>\n
       earning   person.     The   future   of   a   child   is   uncertain. <\/p>\n
       Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing <\/p>\n
       but had a prospect to earn.  The question of assessment of <\/p>\n
       compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer.   The figure of <\/p>\n
       compensation   in   such   cases   involves   a   good   deal   of <\/p>\n
       guesswork.   In   cases,   where   parents   are   claimants, <\/p>\n
       relevant factor would be age of parents.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
12.It was further observed that:\n<\/p>\n
       “In   cases   of   young   children   of   tender   age,   in   view   of <\/p>\n
       uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of <\/p>\n
       death   nor   the   prospects   of   the   future   increase   in   their <\/p>\n
       income   nor   chances   of   advancement   of   their   career   are <\/p>\n
       capable of proper determination on estimated basis.  The <\/p>\n
       reason   is   that   at   such   an   early   age,   the   uncertainties   in <\/p>\n
                                                                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
        regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career <\/p>\n
        and   thereafter   advancement   in   life   are   so   many   that <\/p>\n
        nothing   can   be   assumed   with   reasonable   certainty. <\/p>\n
        Therefore,   neither   the   income   of   the   deceased   child   is <\/p>\n
        capable   of   assessment   on   estimated   basis   nor   the <\/p>\n
        financial   loss   suffered   by   the   parents   is   capable   of <\/p>\n
        mathematical computation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
13. It   is   quite   true,   as   observed   in  Satender   &   Ors.  (supra),   that   the <\/p>\n
    question of assessment of compensation in a case where the deceased <\/p>\n
    is   an   infant   involves   a   good   deal   of   guesswork   but   in   our   view   it <\/p>\n
    cannot  be a wild guesswork.   As aforesaid,  some material  has to be <\/p>\n
    adduced by the claimants to prove that they entertained a reasonable <\/p>\n
    expectation of pecuniary advantage from the deceased. There are quite <\/p>\n
    a   few   precedents   providing   guidelines   for   determination   of <\/p>\n
    compensation   in   such   cases   but   because   of   nature   of   the   order   we <\/p>\n
    propose to pass on facts in hand, we deem it unnecessary to burden the <\/p>\n
    judgment by making a reference to all these cases, except to note that <\/p>\n
    in  Lata Wadhwa & Ors.  Vs.  State of Bihar & Ors.3   as also in  M.S.\n<\/p>\n
    Grewal   &   Anr.    Vs.  Deep   Chand   Sood   &   Ors.4,    wherein   a   large <\/p>\n
    number   of   young   school   going   children   had   lost   their   lives, <\/p>\n
    respectively in fire and by drowning, multiplier method was adopted <\/p>\n
    and applied for assigning value of future dependency to determine the <\/p>\n
    quantum of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
3 (2001) 8 SCC 197<\/p>\n
4 (2001) 8 SCC 151<\/p>\n
                                                                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
14. Having examined the instant case on the touchstone of the aforestated <\/p>\n
   broad principles,  we are of the opinion that neither the Tribunal nor <\/p>\n
   the High Court applied any principle for determination of the amount <\/p>\n
   of   compensation   on   account   of   the   death   of   a   still   born   child.     It   is <\/p>\n
   clear from a bare reading of the orders of the Tribunal and the High <\/p>\n
   Court   that   no   reasons   have   been   indicated   by   the   Tribunal   while <\/p>\n
   awarding a lump sum amount of `50,000\/- towards the loss of unborn <\/p>\n
   child and  `10,000\/- towards pain and suffering to the mother  and by <\/p>\n
   the High Court enhancing the said amounts to a consolidated amount <\/p>\n
   of `1,80,000\/-. Besides, in the impugned judgment, we do not find any <\/p>\n
   discussion on the question of non-pecuniary compensation awarded by <\/p>\n
   the Tribunal to the claimant-mother on account of pain and suffering <\/p>\n
   as a result of death of the child.  In the normal course, we would have <\/p>\n
   remanded   the   matter   back   to   the   Tribunal   for   fresh   consideration.\n<\/p>\n
   However, bearing in mind the quantum of compensation awarded by <\/p>\n
   the courts below and the fact that the accident took place in the year <\/p>\n
   1995, we are of the opinion that at this juncture it would be too harsh <\/p>\n
   to direct the claimants to undergo the entire gamut of a fresh exercise <\/p>\n
   under   Section   168   of   the   Act.     Therefore,   in   the   facts   and <\/p>\n
   circumstances   of   the   case,   we   refrain   from   interfering   with   the <\/p>\n
   impugned judgment and dismiss the appeal accordingly, with no order <\/p>\n
   as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
15.Before   concluding,   we   place   on   record   our   appreciation   for   the <\/p>\n
   valuable   assistance   rendered   by   Mr.   Uday   U.   Lalit,   the   learned <\/p>\n
   Amicus Curiae.\n<\/p>\n
                                             …………………………………….\n<\/p>\n
                                                 (D.K. JAIN, J.) <\/p>\n
                                                     ……………………………………..\n<\/p>\n
                                                (R.M. LODHA, J.)<\/p>\n
NEW DELHI;\n<\/p>\n
AUGUST 23, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
ARS<\/p>\n
                                                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Kusuma & Anr on 23 August, 2011 Author: D Jain Bench: D.K. Jain, R.M. Lodha REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7212 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.17905 of 2008) NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. — APPELLANT VERSUS KUSUMA […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21258","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNational Insurance Co.Ltd vs Kusuma & Anr on 23 August, 2011 - 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\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Kusuma & Anr on 23 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-15T17:55:55+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\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Kusuma & Anr on 23 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-15T17:55:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2073,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011\",\"name\":\"National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Kusuma & Anr on 23 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-15T17:55:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Kusuma & Anr on 23 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Kusuma & Anr on 23 August, 2011 - 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\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Kusuma & Anr on 23 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-15T17:55:55+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\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Kusuma & Anr on 23 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-15T17:55:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011"},"wordCount":2073,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011","name":"National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Kusuma & Anr on 23 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-15T17:55:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-kusuma-anr-on-23-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Kusuma & Anr on 23 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/21258","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=21258"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21258\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21258"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21258"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21258"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}