{"id":238155,"date":"2009-06-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009"},"modified":"2018-01-22T23:51:15","modified_gmt":"2018-01-22T18:21:15","slug":"the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs R.Radhakrishnan on 22 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs R.Radhakrishnan on 22 June, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 22\/06\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN\n\nC.M.A.No.906 of 2008\n\nThe United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nSeethalakshmi Complex, Thirunagar,\nMadurai.\t\t\t... Appellant\/2nd Respondent\n\nvs.\n\n1.R.Radhakrishnan\n2.R.Meenakshi\n3.D.Rajangam\t\t\t...Respondents \/ Respondents\n\nPRAYER\n\nThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of\nMotor Vehicles Act 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2008 passed\nin M.A.C.O.P.No.563 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal\n(Principal District Court), Madurai.\t\t\n\n!For Appellant     ...Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai\n^For Respondents   ...Mr.C.Vakeeswaran\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tIt is a very unfortunate case, wherein 2. years old child died in an<br \/>\naccident, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000\/- as compensation to the<br \/>\nparents and against which only the present appeal has been preferred by the<br \/>\nInsurance Company.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The case of the appellant\/Insurance Company is that the vehicle named in<br \/>\nthe claim petition was not involved in the accident and the death of the child<br \/>\noccurred due to asphyxia while playing with the other children in haystack and<br \/>\nnot due to the accident.  The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s complaint given by them to the police authority through Ex.R.2 dated<br \/>\n28.09.2006 and Ex.R.3 dated 08.02.2007.  Further, he relied on the evidence of<br \/>\nR.W.1 and R.W.2 and also Ex.R.4 to contend that the child did not die due to the<br \/>\naccident as contended by the claimants, it died while the child was playing as<br \/>\nstated above.  The learned counsel is unable to state as to what the stage of<br \/>\nthe complaint given by the appellant to the police authority as bogus claim.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.Secondly, the learned counsel also questioned the quantum of award<br \/>\npassed by the Tribunal stating that it is on the higher side.  He also relied<br \/>\nupon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2007 ACJ 2816, <a href=\"\/doc\/738060\/\">Oriental<br \/>\nInsurance Company, Ltd., vs. Syed Ibrahim and others<\/a>, wherein a boy aged about 7<br \/>\nyears old died; the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000\/- plus Rs.1,000\/- for funeral<br \/>\nexpenses.  The High Court enhanced the award to Rs.1,52,000\/- and the matter was<br \/>\ntaken to the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court observed that in the<br \/>\ncases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither<br \/>\nthe income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor<br \/>\nthe financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical<br \/>\ncomputation. In that case, the Supreme Court allowed Rs.51,500\/-.  Only by<br \/>\nrelying upon the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel vehemently contended<br \/>\nthat the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and it has to be<br \/>\nreduced.  He also relied upon another judgment of this Court reported in 2008<br \/>\n(4)T.A.C.66 (Chhattis.),Gaya Prasad Agrawal and another vs. T.A.Reddy and<br \/>\nothers, wherein for the death of 2. years old child a sum of Rs.50,000\/- was<br \/>\ngranted as just and proper compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that<br \/>\nthe accident occurred due to the accident caused by the van and the child did<br \/>\nnot die for any other reason as contended by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant and it is not a bogus claim. He relied upon the judgment of the<br \/>\nSupreme Court reported in 2008 ACJ 1405, Santhosh Rani vs. Ranjit Singh and<br \/>\nothers, in that case 13 years old child died and the Tribunal awarded<br \/>\nRs.50,000\/- on account of liability and the same was upheld by the High Court;<br \/>\nThe Apex Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,50,000\/-. He also relied upon<br \/>\nanother Supreme Court judgment in New India Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Satendar<br \/>\nand others reported in AIR 2007 SC 324= 2007 ACJ 160, wherein, 9 years old child<br \/>\ndied, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,40,000\/- plus Rs.1,00,000\/- and a sum<br \/>\nof Rs.5,000\/- for funeral expenses; High Court dismissed the appeal and the Apex<br \/>\nCourt reduced the award from Rs.4,45,000\/- to Rs.1,80,000\/- following the<br \/>\nearlier judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Jasfir<br \/>\nKaun and others reported in AIR 2003 SC= 2003 ACJ 1800.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon another judgment<br \/>\nreported in (2008) 2 MLJ 510, <a href=\"\/doc\/1509577\/\">Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport<br \/>\nCorporation vs. M.Chinnasamy and Others,<\/a> in which, 3 years old child died and a<br \/>\nsum of Rs.1,86,000\/- was awarded by the Tribunal and the same was confirmed by<br \/>\nthis Court. Further, he also relied upon another judgment of Karnataka High<br \/>\nCourt reported in 2008 ACJ 1749, Premakumari and another vs. United India<br \/>\nInsurance Co. Ltd., and another, in that case 2. years old child died and the<br \/>\nTribunal awarded a sum of Rs.83,000\/- and on appeal the amount was enhanced to<br \/>\nRs.1,80,000\/-.  After relying upon of those judgments, the learned counsel<br \/>\nsubmitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal need not to be reduced.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe respondent. On perusal of the counter statement filed by the Insurance<br \/>\nCompany would reveal that the allegations in the claim petition were denied in<br \/>\ngeneral. Each and every allegation made in the claim petition was not denied<br \/>\nspecifically Para No.5 of the counter statement filed by the Insurance company<br \/>\nis extracted as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;This respondent reserves its right to file additional statement of objection<br \/>\nlater, on receipt of additional information. D.Rajangam, who alleged to drive<br \/>\nthe van at the time of accident is not having any valid driving license. This<br \/>\naccident is a hit and run case, in which the lorry Regn.No. and its owner<br \/>\ndetails are not known to the petitioners, therefore, a false case has been<br \/>\nregistered by Thirunagar Police against the 1st respondent&#8217;s van driver. The<br \/>\npetitioners claim of Rs.50,000\/- under no fault liability is not maintainable&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.The allegation in Paragraph 5 of the counter statement would show that<br \/>\nthe accident was a hit and run case, whereas the stand of the appellant during<br \/>\nthe trial was that the child did not die due to the accident, but died due to<br \/>\nasphyxia while she was playing along with other children in the haystack.  The<br \/>\nInsurance Company did not take any definite stand as to whether the child died<br \/>\nin the accident or while playing. As per the counter statement before the<br \/>\nTribunal was that the appellant did not plead that the  child died while playing<br \/>\nand the claim was a bogus one. In the absence of pleading to the effect that the<br \/>\nchild died due to asphyxia during the play in the haystack, the appellant<br \/>\ncompany cannot set up such a plea. It is well settled law that any amount of<br \/>\nevidence in the absence of pleading is of no avail. The following are the<br \/>\njudgments in support of the above said principle: 2003(1) CTC 254, 2007(1) CTC<br \/>\n392; 2001(1) CTC 160. Hence, in the absence of plea the contention of the<br \/>\nappellant that the child died while playing is liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.To decide about cause of the death of the child, the post martem report<br \/>\ncould be considered. The post martem report of the child Ex.P.4 reads as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The deceased would appear to have died on usual and Haemo RRhage due to abdomen<br \/>\ninjuries&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>The above report reveals that the child died on usual and Haemo RRhage due to<br \/>\nabdomen injuries.  There was no cross examination by the appellant Insurance<br \/>\nCompany in this regard and no contra evidence was adduced by the Insurance<br \/>\nCompany to show that the child did not die due to the accident.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.On the other hand the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 would show that the<br \/>\nchild died only due to accident. The Ex.P.1 F.I.R. also reveals that the<br \/>\naccident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the van and on that<br \/>\nbasis, the charge-sheet was also filed.  It was marked as Ex.P.2 and the Motor<br \/>\nVehicle Inspector Report was marked as Ex.P.3. If the child died due to<br \/>\nasphyxia, there could not have been any injury in the abdomen. The injury in the<br \/>\nabdomen would only prove the child died due to injury caused in the accident.<br \/>\nP.W.2 was the Eye witness to the accident and spoke of the accident.  Moreover,<br \/>\nthe Tribunal rightly concluded that there was no evidence on the side of the<br \/>\nappellant to prove that the child did not die in the accident. The Tribunal<br \/>\nfound that there was medical evidence to prove the stand of the appellant. The<br \/>\nTribunal observed that the police authority did not make any investigation by<br \/>\nexamining the witness regarding the bogus claim.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.The aforesaid evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as well as the documentary<br \/>\nevidence filed before the Tribunal would show that the child died due to the<br \/>\naccident only. In those circumstances only the Tribunal came  to the conclusion<br \/>\nthat the child died in the accident caused by the vehicle, insured with the<br \/>\nappellant\/Insurance company.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.It is very unfortunate that the parents lost their only child in the<br \/>\ntender age.  Immortal Tamil Poet Thiruvalluvar devoted a chapter for &#8220;Children&#8221;<br \/>\n(MAZHALAI SELVAM) denoting their importance in one&#8217;s life. No amount would<br \/>\ncompensate the loss of the child especially only child of the claimants. Even if<br \/>\nsun or star or moon or karpakavriksha or even kamadhenu is given to the affected<br \/>\nparents, will it or will they be alternate for their child? Certainly not.  To<br \/>\nput it in nutshell&#8221;. Nothing in the world is equal to their child&#8221;. In that<br \/>\nevent, this court has to make a sincere effort to suitably compensate them. No<br \/>\namount of money can compensate for the loss of the child. Definitely loss of the<br \/>\nchild caused a vaccum in the life of the appellant. The loss of son was<br \/>\ndescribed in the great Epics &#8220;Mahabaratha&#8221; and &#8220;Ramayana&#8221;. King Dasaratha died<br \/>\ndue to puthrasogha, when Rama went to Jungle.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.Ex.P.5 is the Family Planning Certificate which showed that the mother<br \/>\nhad undergone a Family Planning operation and in that event the chances of<br \/>\nhaving a child is remote.  Even for child&#8217;s death, the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in<br \/>\na recent judgment in <a href=\"\/doc\/1193898\/\">R.K.Malik &amp; Anothers vs. Kiran Pal and Others,<\/a> reported in<br \/>\n2009(8) SCALE 451, held that future prospects of the child could be taken into<br \/>\nconsideration for awarding compensation. Considering the fact that the parents<br \/>\nlost their only male child and based on the evidence and the judgment of the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that the Tribunal rightly awarded a sum<br \/>\nof Rs.1,50,000\/- to the parents and the same is reasonable.  Though there are<br \/>\nuncertainties about the prospects of the child, that cannot be a ground to deny<br \/>\ncompensation for the case of this nature.  This Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1509577\/\">Managing Director,<br \/>\nTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs. M.Chinnasamy and others<\/a> reported in<br \/>\n(2008)2 MLJ 510 awarded a sum of Rs.1,86,000\/- for the death of the three year<br \/>\nold child.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.Taking into consideration of the aforesaid judgment, this Court finds<br \/>\nthat the award of  Rs.1,50,000\/- along with interest at 7.5% for the loss of<br \/>\nchild is just and the same is sustained.  Accordingly,the appeal is dismissed.<br \/>\nNo Costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>ns<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal<br \/>\n(Principal District Court),<br \/>\nMadurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs R.Radhakrishnan on 22 June, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22\/06\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.M.A.No.906 of 2008 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Seethalakshmi Complex, Thirunagar, Madurai. &#8230; Appellant\/2nd Respondent vs. 1.R.Radhakrishnan 2.R.Meenakshi 3.D.Rajangam &#8230;Respondents \/ Respondents PRAYER [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-238155","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs R.Radhakrishnan on 22 June, 2009 - 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\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs R.Radhakrishnan on 22 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-22T18:21:15+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\\\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs R.Radhakrishnan on 22 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-22T18:21:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1803,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009\",\"name\":\"The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs R.Radhakrishnan on 22 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-22T18:21:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs R.Radhakrishnan on 22 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@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 United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs R.Radhakrishnan on 22 June, 2009 - 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\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs R.Radhakrishnan on 22 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-22T18:21:15+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\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs R.Radhakrishnan on 22 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-22T18:21:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009"},"wordCount":1803,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009","name":"The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs R.Radhakrishnan on 22 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-22T18:21:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-r-radhakrishnan-on-22-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs R.Radhakrishnan on 22 June, 2009"}]},{"@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\/238155","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=238155"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238155\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238155"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=238155"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=238155"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}