{"id":219708,"date":"2008-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-04-11T19:33:01","modified_gmt":"2016-04-11T14:03:01","slug":"united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Arora &amp; Ors on 24 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Arora &amp; Ors on 24 September, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.J.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B. Sinha, Cyriac Joseph<\/div>\n<pre>                                                                                 REPORTABLE\n                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                          CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5876 OF 2008\n                         (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 23751\/2004)\n\n\nUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.                                 ...Appellant(s)\n\n                   Versus\n\nRAKESH KUMAR ARORA &amp; ORS.                                      ...Respondent(s)\n\n                                     ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>          Delay condoned.\n<\/p>\n<p>          Substitution allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>          Application for setting aside the abatement is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>          Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>           This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.5.2004<\/p>\n<p>  passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court at Chandigarh<\/p>\n<p>  whereby and whereunder the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant<\/p>\n<p>  herein from the judgment and order dated 9.10.2000 passed by the learned Single<\/p>\n<p>  Judge in the said F.A.No. 2627 of 1998 was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>           One Balwant Singh filed an application claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>  (Rupees Ten Lakhs) by way of compensation for death of his son Virender Singh<\/p>\n<p>  in<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         -2-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>an accident which took place on 5.2.1997. The owner of the vehicle contested the<\/p>\n<p>said claim. Appellant herein, inter alia, raised a contention before the Tribunal<\/p>\n<p>that the driver of the vehicle, namely, Karan Arora was a minor on the date of the<\/p>\n<p>accident and was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and thus it was<\/p>\n<p>not liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle.\n<\/p>\n<p>          In view of the aforementioned stand taken by the appellant inter alia the<\/p>\n<p>following issue was framed:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>           Whether the accident resulting in death of Virender Singh alias<br \/>\n           Rinku, took place due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing<br \/>\n           registration No. HR41\/3347 by respondent driver Karan Arora?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>          While determining the said issue the learned Tribunal opined that the<\/p>\n<p>Insurance Company was not liable for payment of the amount of compensation to<\/p>\n<p>the claimants, stating:\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         -3-<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                    &#8220;From the bare perusal of the evidence of respondent<br \/>\n         driver Karan Arora appearing as RW1, which has been reproduced<br \/>\n         almost in its entirety in para nos. 19 to 22 at pages 10 to 13 of this<br \/>\n         award, it becomes absolutely clear that he was aged about 15 years,<br \/>\n         he does not know driving; he was born on 7.8.1983 and that he is not<br \/>\n         having any driving licence till 25.7.1998, when his statement was<br \/>\n         recorded.   In these circumstances, I return a firm finding that<br \/>\n         respondent driver Karan Arora had no valid\/effective driving<br \/>\n         licence on the day of the accident i.e. 5.2.1997.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>         An appeal under Sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 was filed before<\/p>\n<p>the High court which was marked as First Appeal from Order No.2627\/1998. A<\/p>\n<p>learned single Judge of the said Court allowed the said appeal, holding:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                  &#8220;After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I<br \/>\n        am of the opinion that the material point for determination is<br \/>\n        whether there was any breach of contract between the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>        owner of the vehicle and the insurance company. If the breach is<br \/>\n        committed on behalf of the vehicle, certainly the Insurance<br \/>\n        Company has a case. In order to bring the case within the mischief<br \/>\n        of &#8220;breach&#8221; it has to be proved that there was a willful default on<br \/>\n        the part of the insured. I have already stated above that no sane<br \/>\n        father would like to give the custody or keys of the vehicle to his<br \/>\n        minor son aged 14 years much less to the friend of the minor. Had<br \/>\n        Rakesh Kumar Arora parted the possession of the vehicle to his son<br \/>\n        he would have contemplated very easily that by doing so he would<br \/>\n        have incited the trouble. The Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court 1987 while<br \/>\n        interpreting the expression &#8220;Breach&#8221; came to the conclusion that if<br \/>\n        it is proved on the record that the owner of the vehicle had done<br \/>\n        every thing his power to keep, honour, and fulfil the promise, in<br \/>\n        such a situation he cannot be held guilty of a deliberate breach.<br \/>\n        There is no evidence on the record to indicate that the owner of the<br \/>\n        vehicle parted the keys of the vehicle to his son deliberately or<br \/>\n        knowingly. If in the absence of the father son takes the keys of the<br \/>\n        vehicle and drives the vehicle for a fun and caused accident, it<br \/>\n        cannot be said that there was an express or implied consent on the<br \/>\n        part of the owner. The judgments which have been relied upon by<br \/>\n        the learned<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        -5-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>        counsel for the Insurance Company may not be any assistance to<br \/>\n        him for the simple reason that in the said judgments it has proved<br \/>\n        prima facie that there was a breach of contract on the part of the<br \/>\n        insured.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>         A Letters Patent Appeal was preferred thereagainst, which was<\/p>\n<p>entertained.\n<\/p>\n<p>         The Division Bench of the High Court by reason of the impugned<\/p>\n<p>judgment dismissed the said appeal, only relying upon or on the basis of some<\/p>\n<p>precedent, viz. V. Mepherson and another vs. Shiv Charan Singh and others 1998<br \/>\nACJ 601 and <a href=\"\/doc\/1182839\/\">Skandia Insurance Company Limited vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan<\/p>\n<p>and others<\/a> 1987 ACJ 411.\n<\/p>\n<p>          Mr. K.L. Nandram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant<\/p>\n<p>contended that keeping in view the provisions of Secs.4 and 5 of the Motor<\/p>\n<p>Vehicles Act 1988, the question of any willful default on the part of the owner is<\/p>\n<p>wholly irrelevant in this case as neither a<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         -6-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>licence could be granted in favour of minor nor in fact the driver of the vehicle<\/p>\n<p>was holding a valid licence. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on <a href=\"\/doc\/883186\/\">National<\/p>\n<p>Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kaushalaya Devi &amp; Ors.<\/a> (2008 (8) SCALE 500.\n<\/p>\n<p>          No body appears on behalf of respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>          The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the proforma respondent-\n<\/p>\n<p>Smt. Kaushalya Devi submitted before us that she has already received the amount<\/p>\n<p>of compensation which had been deposited by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>          Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits driving of a vehicle by any<br \/>\nperson under the age of eighteen years in any public place. Section 5 of the Act<\/p>\n<p>imposes a statutory responsibility upon the owners of the motor vehicles not to<\/p>\n<p>cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of Sec.3 or 4 to<\/p>\n<p>drive the vehicle.\n<\/p>\n<p>          The vehicle in question admittedly was being driven by Karan Arora<\/p>\n<p>who was aged about fifteen years. The Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, in our<\/p>\n<p>opinion, rightly held that Karan Arora did not hold any valid licence on<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         -7-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the date of accident, namely 5.2.1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>          The learned single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court<\/p>\n<p>did not put unto themselves a correct question of law. They proceeded on a wrong<\/p>\n<p>premise that it was for the Insurance Company to prove breach of conditions of<\/p>\n<p>the contract of insurance.\n<\/p>\n<p>  The High Court did not advert to itself the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the<\/p>\n<p>Motor Vehicles Act and thus misdirected itself in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>          This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/584313\/\">Oriental<\/p>\n<p>Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Prithvi Raj<\/a> (2008 (1) SCALE 727) wherein upon taking into<\/p>\n<p>consideration a large number of decisions,       it was held that the Insurance<\/p>\n<p>Company was not liable, stating :\n<\/p>\n<p>                      &#8220;In the instant case, the State Commission has<br \/>\n         categorically found that the evidence on record clearly established<br \/>\n         that the licensing authority had not issued any license, as was<br \/>\n         claimed by the Driver and the respondent. The evidence of Shri<br \/>\n         A.V.V.Rajan, Junior Assistant of the Office of the Jt.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            -8-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>         Commissioner &amp; Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad who produced the<br \/>\n         official records clearly established that no driving license was<br \/>\n         issued to Shri Ravinder Kumar or Ravinder Singh in order to<br \/>\n         enable and legally permit him to drive a motor vehicle. There was<br \/>\n         no cross examination of the said witness.               The National<br \/>\n         Commission also found that there was no defect in the finding<br \/>\n         recorded by the State Commission in this regard.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>         Yet again this court in <a href=\"\/doc\/883186\/\">National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Kaushalaya Dvi &amp;<\/p>\n<p>Ors.<\/a> 2008 (8) SCALE 500 took the same view stating:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                     &#8220;The provisions relating to the necessity of having a licence<br \/>\n        to drive a vehicle is contained in Section 3,4 and 10 of the Act. As<br \/>\n        various aspects of the said provisions, vis-a-vis, the liability of the<br \/>\n        Insurance Company to reimburse the owner in respect of a claim of a<br \/>\n        third party as provided in Section 149 thereof have been dealt with in<br \/>\n        several decisions, it is not necessary for us to reiterate the same once<br \/>\n        over again. Suffice it to notice some of the precedents operating in<br \/>\n        the field.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                     <a href=\"\/doc\/1827019\/\">In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh &amp; Ors.<\/a><br \/>\n        [(2004) 3 SCC 297] this Court held:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   -9-<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;88. Section 10 of the Act provides for forms and contents<br \/>\nof licences to drive. The licence has to be granted in the prescribed<br \/>\nform. Thus, a licence to drive a light motor vehicle would entitle the<br \/>\nholder there to drive the vehicle falling within that class or<br \/>\ndescription.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>            89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to<br \/>\nhold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he<br \/>\nintends to drive.      Section 10 of the Act enables the Central<br \/>\nGovernment to prescribe forms of driving licences for various<br \/>\ncategories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of the said<br \/>\nsection.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>            It was furthermore observed:\n<\/p>\n<p>            &#8220;90. We have construed and determined the scope of sub-<br \/>\nclause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, Minor breaches<br \/>\nof licence conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate,<br \/>\nrequirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have<br \/>\nbeen the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor<br \/>\nbreaches of inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles.<br \/>\nSuch minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing<br \/>\nconditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit<br \/>\nof coverage of insurance to the third parties.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       -10-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                 91. On all pleas of breach of licensing conditions taken by<br \/>\n       the insurer, it would be open to the Tribunal to adjudicate the claim<br \/>\n       and decide inter se liability of insurer and insured; although where<br \/>\n       such adjudication is likely to entail undue delay in decision of the<br \/>\n       claim of the victim, the Tribunal in its discretion may relegate the<br \/>\n       insurer to seek its remedy of reimbursement from the insured in the<br \/>\n       civil court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>              The decision in Swaran Singh, however, was held to be not<br \/>\n       applicable in relation to the owner or a passenger of a vehicle which<br \/>\n       is insured.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>         In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court as noticed<\/p>\n<p>hereinbefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.         It is set aside<\/p>\n<p>accordingly and that of the learned Tribunal is restored. However,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              -11-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>  keeping in view the admitted fact that as no stay had been granted by the High<\/p>\n<p>  Court the appellant has deposited the entire amount which has since been<\/p>\n<p>  withdrawn by the claimant-respondent; we direct that the appellant shall be<\/p>\n<p>  entitled to recover the amount in question from the owner of the vehicle, namely,<\/p>\n<p>  respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>           The appeal is allowed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>           No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                     &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.J.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                        (S.B. SINHA)<\/p>\n<p>                            &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.J.\n<\/p>\n<p>                       (CYRIAC JOSEPH)<br \/>\nNew Delhi,<br \/>\nSeptember 24, 2008.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Arora &amp; Ors on 24 September, 2008 Author: &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.J. Bench: S.B. Sinha, Cyriac Joseph REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5876 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 23751\/2004) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. &#8230;Appellant(s) Versus RAKESH [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219708","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Arora &amp; Ors on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-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 Co. Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Arora &amp; Ors on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-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=\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-11T14:03:01+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=\"9 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-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Arora &amp; Ors on 24 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-11T14:03:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1780,\"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\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008\",\"name\":\"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Arora &amp; Ors on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-11T14:03:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Arora &amp; Ors on 24 September, 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 Co. Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Arora &amp; Ors on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Arora &amp; Ors on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-11T14:03:01+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Arora &amp; Ors on 24 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-11T14:03:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008"},"wordCount":1780,"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\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008","name":"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Arora &amp; Ors on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-11T14:03:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-rakesh-kumar-arora-ors-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Arora &amp; Ors on 24 September, 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\/219708","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=219708"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219708\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219708"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219708"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219708"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}