{"id":234439,"date":"2008-07-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008"},"modified":"2016-12-16T20:46:26","modified_gmt":"2016-12-16T15:16:26","slug":"the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Victor Anand David on 29 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Victor Anand David on 29 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Manjula Chellur K.N.Keshavanarayana<\/div>\n
IN THE men COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQ,RE:\"\"T..,_\n\n\ufb02.\n\nmarge THIS 'I'i~iE139 DAY 01:' JULY 2008;?\" '  \u00abI   A' \n\nPRESENT:\n\nTHE HONBLE MRSJUSTICE M;i\\NJU LAg CEELLIJEVV  A  T\n\nAND\n\nTHE I~I()N'BLE MR.JUS'I'ICEV,!{._bi.KE;':'\u00a7If\u00a7Z5xVANAE\u00a75';5gY)\u00a7r;IA  \"\n\nM.F.A.N0.9991     \n\nM. RA. N\u20ac) ,9~689 'I  \n\nBETWEEN: -- _  Z \n1__l\\\u00a51'rm_:ANr1Ex\u00a7:,\u00ab ~  \nP KALEEVGA-AR};Q R'\u20ac;A13'-_f- \nBANGALORE     -- .\nBY DULY CONSTiT'UTE.DE'{1'*if0RNEY\n\n _   _  ' ...APF'ELLAN'I'\n\n(By Sn': KEVSURYANARAYANA; R50, ADV.)\n\nArm : \n\n V 3 '.V'Iv'C,\"FOIV{5vf\u00a7\u00a7E;\u00b0;F\u00a7\u00a7DAVID\n\ns\/ Q ALEXANDER\n; AGED ABOUT 33. YEARS\n_  R\/AT NQ\"I, I BLOCK I MAIN\n ROAD, M.S.R. NAGRA\n* .};:AN\u00a7;AL0RE * 94\n\nV NEAHESH MOTORS\nW \"BY PROPRIETOR\n\n* no 81 PARKAL MU'I\"I',\nTANK BUM) ROAD\nBANGALORE - 9\n\n$4\n\n\n\nP SHELLAIAH\n\nMAJOR iN AGE\n\nNOP. 1G5~A SURREYPALYAM\nP081' P VELUR\n\nNAMMAKAL\n\nREGIONAL MANAGER 1\nNATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., \nNO 144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX,\nM.G. ROAD  \nBANGALORE ~ 1\n\n(By Sri.K.S.ASHOK KUMAR, ADV. 1;'\nSRI.G.NANII)A KUMAR, ADv__\u00a7~oR--_R~:; _\nSRi.A.M.VENKATESH, ADV. 1r__1~\"2 R;--#1 \"\n\n5' AMFA N*i5\u00a753'?' 0F'*A\u00e90<AiA  \n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1\n\nM13 NATi,O_NA_L 1N:$I.;RANc:1\u00ab: <:-m:>\nN().14,4 SUBHA.RAh}{{ COM.PLEX--\n\nM G ROAD' . \"  \"    ' '\nBANGALORIE} 1 BY' yrs '\u00bb  \" ~ 4. \n\nREGIONAL__MANA'GER.. \u00bb'   APPELLANT\n\n{By 81'}. C;  '?viA0NNAV'PP.A,VV Ami.)\n\nx?1.cff<jR A1~\u00a3A_Ni3 DAVED s\/0 ALEXANDER\nAGE-D :32 YEARS\n\n NO 1, ~.1ST;_3L0cK 18'? MAIN RAOD\n\n"M S R NAGARA\n\nA 'CfBAN:GrALORE-560094\n\n Mg\/3 MAHESH MOTORS\n .331 ITS PROPRIETGR\n\n NO 81 PARKAL MUTT\n\nTANK BUN D ROAD\nBANGALORE\n\n%s~\/A\n\n'   V. . . R'Es1\u00a70vNt:EV:irfSi  A\n\n\n\n3\n\n3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE} so we\nR O NO 28 UNYFY BUILDING ANNEX\nMISSION ROM)\n\nBANGALOREHZ7\n\n4 SR1? SHELLAIAH '\n\nN().1()3-A SURRPELYAM POST\n\nVEERAN NAPALYAM TALUK\nPVELUR     \nNAMMAKAL RES?.QN--DE;_N'FS \n\n(By Sri : K S ASHOK K{JMAE~,.ADv.,EO--E_"E\u00a51\u00bb__   \n\nSRI.A.M.VENKA'I'ESH, ADV'.-.\u00a2_F'\u00a7)R  R-4\nDISPENSED WITH. R43 IS SER\u00a7.fED.}L7  ' " --\n\nTHESE MFAS ARE FILED 'U~,{S.41?jf3{_13 0;?' MV AOT AGAINST\nTHE COMMON JU_"\ufb01(3"\u00a7%,t!'i%1I'IT:--.AT%I1)" AWARE-BATES: 26\/O3\/2005\nPASSED IN MVC\u00ab'i*I'O,I?0';1\/"19-39~.._ON 'EPEE FILE OF 14TH ADDL.\nJUOGE, MEMBER   OF SMALL CAUSES,\nEANOALORE ._  1.0') ._AWARQI\u00bbNG COMPENSATION OF\nRS.10,-47,800\/-- Wim INTEREST @ 6% PA. FROM THE DATE OF\nPETFFION 'I'i'i..L  OA\u00a7'.E'OF"tOEEOS1T.\n\nTHESE M.'E\u00a7AE.V eOM1N.c\u00a7 ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,\nKESHA vAgvAEAYANA,V_J;; DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:\n\nJU DGMENT\n\n    are iisted for orders, by the consent of\n\n 55$'-T.S. .\u00e91;epeais were heard On merits and are being\n\n"  \u00e9i:-=._i;:=<'2'~!=".\u00a2d; af"a~:;;$ordiag1y.\n\n   both these aypeals arise out of same judgment and\n\n Efgvard-Fpassed by the Tribzmal in MVC NO.1709\/99 01}. the file Of\n\n .AV:vtheVMACT, Bangalore (SCCH-3.0), both these appeais were heard\n\ntogether and are disposed of by this common judgment.\n\n\n\n4\n\n3. The appeliant in M.F.A.NO.9991\/2005 was arraig_e,ed._as\n\nrespondent No.3, while the appellant in  <\/pre>\n
was arraigned as respondent No.5    ”<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 in both these appeals},  . 3 A<\/p>\n
4. The appellants are tl1eVii;tiei;rere” of <\/p>\n
involved in the accident in _.c}.ai1i1ant \ufb01ded claim
\npetition seeking eompenseiioii  for the
\npersonal injuries     ‘by hincx on the
\nmotor vehicle  4.15 pm. on
\n14.7.1998  insurer of the bus in
\nquestion,   the petitioner, on the date of
\nthe accident,  Vlieleyiti-aei*t\u00bb1′”aee”el]ix1g in bus bearing Registration
\n if ozi Beiigelere Davanagere Road, near Tavarekere<\/p>\n
  “}’a1e.l\u00a7, bus dashed against the lorry bearing<\/p>\n
  39 A 4447 which came from the opposite<\/p>\n
.diur’ee_tion a~:3,dt.iz1 the said accident, he sustained multiple<\/p>\n
 injury to his left; eye and during the<\/p>\n
V.  the left eye was removed by surgery and an arti\ufb01cial<\/p>\n
  ball was implanted and thus, he suffered permanent<\/p>\n
 V:-idisabiiity by Way of complete loss of vision in his left eye.<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
respect of those vehicles and its validity as on the <\/p>\n
accident.\n<\/p>\n
6. After assessing the oral and clQcz,;e.ieI1tary”evideg1e\u00a7:<\/p>\n
placed by the parties, the Tribunal ‘e3*c_lthe  <\/p>\n
appeal held that the accident  due  “telitlie leomposite
\nnegligence of the driver of    the lorry.
\nThe Tribunal held that the  vehicles are
\nequally responsible’   of the oral and
\ndocumentary  Tribunal awarded
\ni\u00a5Zs.1{),47,8(,}:lv()”\/1   variceus heads and
\ndirected payhxerit ef  amount by the owner and the<\/p>\n
insurer of, both the siiehglclesl’-at.’50\u00b0xE> each.<\/p>\n
 ‘ *33ein__g’~aggrieved by the said judwent and award, the<\/p>\n
 viz1surer_\u00a7—-.,_5fv.bet’\u00a7;  vehicles have presented these appeals<\/p>\n
  that the finding of the Tribunal on the<\/p>\n
”ef actionable negligence is perverse and contrary to the<\/p>\n
 ..;efJider1’ce en record. They have else questioned the quanttmz ef<\/p>\n
 Acempensation awarded by the Tribunal as excessive and<\/p>\n
= ::_”eX0rbitar1t.\n<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
7*’<\/p>\n
8. Upon service of notice of these appeals, the ,ciaii\u00a31;ant<\/p>\n
appeared through his counsel.\n<\/p>\n
9. 1 have heard the learned co1:I.,{iseie.i’oij  sidealaitd A<\/p>\n
perused the records.\n<\/p>\n
10. From the perusai of the fee-oVird.s, it is  that the
\naccident on account of collie-iioin ~t.Iie.”b:;s and the lorry in
\nquestion is not disputed. The\ufb01fact  Isgiid accident, the<\/p>\n
ciaimant sustained  complete loss of visiot:<\/p>\n
in his left   The reading of the
\naverments   petition as a whole gives \u00a3113.
\nimpressior: itiieivacoideintiiieas due to the rash and negligent
\n i  the  by its respective drivers. The<\/p>\n
evidetiee. of  establishes the manner in which the accident<\/p>\n
 to his evidence, the driver of the bus drove<\/p>\n
-. ji:\u00a7’;ei vehicie  high speed in a rash aad negligent manner and<\/p>\n
   to overtake. another vehicle dashed against the<\/p>\n
 The Tribunal having regard to the evidence on record has<\/p>\n
  that there was sufficient road space for the lorry drier to<\/p>\n
“move on to the left side to make way for the btts, which was<\/p>\n
@<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
coming from the opposite direction by overtaking;<\/p>\n
vehicle and in spite of that the iorzy driver fai1e\u00a7i:*– <\/p>\n
iony to the left: sicie an\u00e9 thereby failed, to.ayoi<i   <\/p>\n
is un\u00e9er these circumstances, the Tfibuiioi '  <\/p>\n
accident was on account of comgosite negligence  the<\/p>\n
drivers of the vehieie.\n<\/p>\n
11. Having regarci to   we are of the
\nconsidered opinioii    committed any
\nerror in holding;  to the composite
\nnegligence    no ground to interfere
\nwith the   evidence, none of the drivers
\nhave entered “2szitI:e\u00a7*ss “Therefore, there is no substance
\n  of these app6\u00a3 i{h regarei to the<\/p>\n
 on the question of actionable negligence.<\/p>\n
— Vi””–vVTherefox*e,i  the finding of the Tribunal on the question<\/p>\n
. .  of actionable, giegljge nee.\n<\/p>\n
—  12; The next aspect required to be considered is whether<\/p>\n
 ‘  coinjdensa\ufb01on awar\u00e9ed by the Tribimai is excessive or just and<\/p>\n
‘V ‘ ‘ i K1 Vreasonable.\n<\/p>\n
\/’1<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
13. There is no dispute that at the time of theecoidetnt,<\/p>\n
the claimant was studying in second   <\/p>\n
.}.J.M.Medica1 Coiiege, Davanagee. Therejs a1so”fic3.: ” . <\/p>\n
on account of injuries sustained by  irgthe \u00e9iccideI3t’,”V?{ieA1′;;:a,s<\/p>\n
lost complete vision in his left e3?e’\u00ab-and for eosmio’  an,”<\/p>\n
arti\ufb01cial eye ball has been inserted  left eye;  d_  <\/p>\n
14. Under these   has awarded<\/p>\n
the following amounts.._v;nder_ vari.ous..1ieaj_t1s;
\n. Pain\ufb01sagony   b   ,  Rs. 90,000–00
\n.Medica1expenses’~–    ~–   Rs. 50,o0o–0o
\n. Co11veyance”&.-11o:uI’is?m:Iei1t”*  Rs. 130,000-00
\n.Academi<l:1oss.    — I Rs. 30,000-00
\n. Loss of higher._edu.catio;1"    Rs. 30,000–00
\n. Loss of marriage prospects  ' Rs. 25,000–()()
\n.Loss ofamenities" V    Rs. 30,000–00
\n. Loss ofg\ufb01jtuxe iz1c'o.meV Rs. 6,52,800–0O.
\n    .  sssss  Total Rs. m,47,s0o–oo<\/p>\n
._'O3-JC3'\\Ul~\u00ab\u20ac-'I-C4.3bJr-u<\/p>\n
   :=2\u00a7\u00a7i&i\u00a7i;~,jg'fieVanCe of the appe\ufb02ants in both these<\/p>\n
:'.r"\u00e91ppea1sA'\u00a7.s  award of compensation of Rs.1,40,000\/–<\/p>\n
 conf\u00e9eyance and nourishment and Rs.6,52,800\/~<\/p>\n
 of future income are on the higher side and they<\/p>\n
..r_eq\u00a7Jj,red to be reduced. During the course of the arguments,<\/p>\n
  was no serious chailenge to the quantum of compensation<\/p>\n
"awarded under the other heads. Even otherwise, we \ufb01nd that<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
the award of Rs.90,000\/- towards pain and agony, <\/p>\n
towards medicai expenses, Rs.3{),000\/~ towards   <\/p>\n
Rs.30,000\/- towards loss of higher-“edu<:at\u00a7,on,t." '<\/p>\n
towards loss of marriage prospects  <\/p>\n
loss of amenities oarmot be termed'.exce.esive –ha::i\ufb01g't\u00a3egard <\/p>\n
the nature of the disabiiity  weho was a
\nmedical student at the  awards made
\nunder these heaqsajirr  are just and
\nreasonable. It it    that the claimant is a
\nMalaysian he   India for pursuing his<\/p>\n
eduoation    _  <\/p>\n
16. wml retgasgtt no the award of Rs.1,40,000\/– under the
\n rrottrishraent”, we \ufb01nd that the Tribunai<\/p>\n
hast  amount by taking into consideration the<\/p>\n
     accident, the ciaimant was required to go to<\/p>\n
” ._V:1’i:2t1’ve oiaoe in Maiaysia on two or three occasions and for<\/p>\n
   spent lot of amounts by travelling by air. In View of<\/p>\n
same, We are of the opinion that the award of Rs. 1,40,000\/-<\/p>\n
t’~_toWards conveyance and nourishment cannot be cozisidere\u00e9 as<\/p>\n
\/3<\/p>\n
%.\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
high or exorbitant and there is no scope for interfe1’ence:h”i;he<\/p>\n
said award.\n<\/p>\n
17. On account of loss of complete :visi.oi1_ii1′.’tt;e’ieft eye;<\/p>\n
admitterily the claimant has st1fferedV”.;eermane’i2tAA <\/p>\n
Medical evidence on record   has
\nsuffered 40% of disability’   The
\nTribunal, on the basis of  eas held that on
\naccount of   ‘bjethe ciaimant in the
\nform of complete’.  eye, he has suffered
\nloss of    We do not see any
\nerror committed hy’  in this regard. The learned
\ncounsel for.   did not seriously dispute the
\n  regard. It is in evidence that after<\/p>\n
the  has completed his MBBS course and<\/p>\n
T’  now ‘practic;ia’g’A in his Country. However, there was no<\/p>\n
..  it evidence to substantiate the contention of the<\/p>\n
 he wouid have earned a minimum sum of<\/p>\n
— per month if he had not suifered the disability.<\/p>\n
 ‘LU-etier these circumstances, the Tribune} has taken the notiona}<\/p>\n
“income of the claimant at Rs.8,0(){}\/~ per month and on that<\/p>\n
E2<\/p>\n
basis calculated the ioss of future earning by the<\/p>\n
income as the loss. in that View of the matter,    <\/p>\n
reckoned Rs.38,4irG0\/ – as annual loss  “U3!   i<\/p>\n
of 17, as clainiant was aged about 25  a\u00a7g\u00a7far–dediia:’.<\/p>\n
of Rs.6,52,800\/- towards loss of   of V<\/p>\n
permanent disability. Having regard: faet  a young
\nperson studying MBBS  left eye, the
\nmethod adopted by,   total future loss
\nof income   qj’1}:1’I1}:’2i”O}3t’:T or erroneous.
\nAssuming   claimant could not
\nhave  Jgizsost graduation course, even
\nwith a MBBS degreet\ufb02if  not incurred complete loss of
\nsfision  e3;eA,”i1e——-would have practiced effectively as a<\/p>\n
General’ earned substantial amount. The complete<\/p>\n
 Iloss of ‘vision  eye has certainly affected the profession<\/p>\n
 the ehi&ant_ as a \u00a3)octor and to that extent it has affected his<\/p>\n
  capacity’ also. Taking into consideration the facts<\/p>\n
 “.’jand’.”cirennastanees of the case, We are of the opinion that the<\/p>\n
  has rightly taken the income of the claimant as<\/p>\n
 :\u00a71s.8,000\/ — per month and on that basis it has rightly awarded<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.6,52,800\/~– towards loss of future income on of<\/p>\n
gaexmanent. disability. Therefore, We see no error  <\/p>\n
the Tribunal in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
18. In this View of the matter, <\/p>\n
awarded. by the Tribunal cannot “termyed   and
\nexorbitant. No gound is    of the
\nawards made by the    heads. The
\nTribunai has aWarotiiVtI1ese appeals.<\/p>\n
19.    are dismissed. The
\namount in sifeposit   the Tribunal. No order<\/p>\n
astocost.  V _    –\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
Judge Q’ .\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
Judge<\/p>\n
RS\/*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Victor Anand David on 29 July, 2008 Author: Manjula Chellur K.N.Keshavanarayana IN THE men COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQ,RE:””T..,_ \ufb02. marge THIS ‘I’i~iE139 DAY 01:’ JULY 2008;?” ‘ \u00abI A’ PRESENT: THE HONBLE MRSJUSTICE M;i\\NJU LAg CEELLIJEVV A T AND THE I~I()N’BLE MR.JUS’I’ICEV,!{._bi.KE;’:’\u00a7If\u00a7Z5xVANAE\u00a75′;5gY)\u00a7r;IA ” M.F.A.N0.9991 […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-234439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Victor Anand David on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Victor Anand David on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-16T15:16:26+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Victor Anand David on 29 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-16T15:16:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1426,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008\",\"name\":\"The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Victor Anand David on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-16T15:16:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Victor Anand David on 29 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Victor Anand David on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Victor Anand David on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-16T15:16:26+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Victor Anand David on 29 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-16T15:16:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008"},"wordCount":1426,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008","name":"The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Victor Anand David on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-16T15:16:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-victor-anand-david-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Victor Anand David on 29 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234439","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=234439"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234439\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}