{"id":241245,"date":"2010-02-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-01-01T22:31:34","modified_gmt":"2015-01-01T17:01:34","slug":"national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt A Dhanalakshmi on 6 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt A Dhanalakshmi on 6 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 6\"?\" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 203.0 \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA'<'.GOW'{5VAR  H\n\nM.F.A.NO.10909\/20vO8"(M\\j_) \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nNationa\ufb01 Insurance 03., Ltd.,\nDo~2, La\ufb01bagh Road,\n\nThrough its Regionai OffEic.\u00e9A;-- _\n930.144, Subharam Compiex," '   h \nM.G. Road, BangaAlQre~S6O._QE0--1.x_  \nRepresented  i4tE;jE\/Admf:nistra'Eiv'e \nMr.E<ha}'a P8$HaL\u00ab4..V"*V.~-~':~_V  ._    .\n\nE 5;  ' E ...APPELLANT\n(By Sri.VB.C.:SeeEh\u00a7':E:frneVM'R_Ei'C,_'Adv.)\nAND: _  _  .\n\n1. Sefr_\u00a3t'.uAA.Dhan\u00e9\u20aca.f\u00a7Shm:i,\n\n . Aged {about 53 y'e'"a"'r"s',\n\nE.  B.L.iV|'.ga~r,aju.\n\nAged abouir 33 years,\nS\/C B;----I,in'g"araju.\n\nE Beig\u00e9h adre residing at E\\lo.567,\n\n  '~3T"'_Main, Bhuvaneshwarinagar,\n\n"\u00a7R.T. Nagar, Bangaiore-S6O O32.\n\n\n\ni\\)\n\n3. Smt. Bindu Philip, Major,\nW\/O Mr. Philip,\nNo.37, Janaki Nilaya,\nAshwathanagara A.C.Post,\nBangalore-560 O45. \n...RESPOND.El\\\u00e9TS\n\n(By Sri. Chandrashekar, Adv. for M\/s Lawyer's   \n\nand R2;   ._\nR3 served)  V V\n\nThis MFA is filed under \nagainst the judgment and award dated":.,_19.3.V2_QO8 \nin MVC l\\io.3192\/2007 on the._V,VVVfi..l,e ofdthel :4'? 'Additional = '\n\n}udge, Court of Small Causes,___VVMeVrri-b_er, VMACVT, Bangalore\nSCCG--10, awarding a 'co'mpe.\ufb01sation.__o,fV'Rs.3,36,OC)O\/-- with\ninterest @ 6% pa from th-ie:dVateV of _p.etiti~on'_~_till deposit.\n\n  for_VVVhVearing this day, the Court\ndelivered the folloi}iiinVgt\u00bb:,,_V'=__V' . V\nV V  ",i_tJ.'DGMENT\n\n_~'l,CvhVa!|engVe"'-in____thi.s appeal is to the judgment and\n\n *a;ward  the MACT, awarding compensation of\n\n interest at 6% per annum. Appellant\n\n wasVVVVthe"V.15'VVrespondent in the claim petition filed before the<\/pre>\n
  VVThe claim petition had been filed by the 1″ & 2″”<\/p>\n
 respondents herein. For the purpose of convenience, the<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in
\nthe MACT.\n<\/p>\n
2. One Lingaraju, ailegediy met with an accident<\/p>\n
while riding his scooter on 02.03.2007 on Queens rzioeo,<\/p>\n
Bangafore and sustained injuries. An FIR in respect’_,of__’_t\ufb01~EI~<\/p>\n
aiieged incident was lodged before the Shiva_j,i_najg.arififraffic   0 <\/p>\n
Police on 05.03.2007, aileging that,  <\/p>\n
2935 dashed against the scooter No’.–i\u00a7{‘Av04~E_–.e7.3’.3’0,0′ as a” 0<\/p>\n
result, the said person and his wifereii down ha.-.0 sostained
\ninjuries. Said Lingarajuzijawnd  .are.aIIegedVAVto have<\/p>\n
taken firstt”‘aid.,:15reatf:’i’en’tin S’re\u00abi’f’a””i-iuospital, Bangaiore and
\nlater Linlgarajfu’ _.in. the Bhagawan Mahaveer<\/p>\n
Jain Hospitaia  0’L.,in’g.-airaju died in the hospitai on<\/p>\n
 __due”V’tov-mrespiratory faiiure, infection, renai<\/p>\n
V.’–..faii1Vire,,Ad’iabe,tic:’nephropathy and fracture of pubic ramus.<\/p>\n
  -iC’iaim petition was fiied under Section 166 of<\/p>\n
 Indian” Motor Vehicies Act, 1988, against the owner<\/p>\n
 =i-nsurer of the said car. Ciaim petition was contested<\/p>\n
“ii’:\ufb02b\\,:__}the insurance company by filing its statement of<\/p>\n
‘$2<\/p>\n
objections. Owner of the car, though was served with<\/p>\n
notice of the petition, did not file the statemei5.._t;7of<\/p>\n
objections. Based on the pleadings of the <\/p>\n
framed three issues. 1″ petitioner deposed .and_:”  <\/p>\n
another witness was examined:=__as,.._?W?2.”<\/p>\n
petitioners, Exhibits P-1 to ex-3_ we’re,_1’r.-iarkeciit;for’the <\/p>\n
respondents, no evidence  !ed_ 0′  \ufb01oweyer, the
\ninsurance poiicy was marlred [as,~E\u00a7&;R5i.’=,Appreciating the
\nevidence placed on recoArr:l,.:.lYl~AC’TV allo’wved’:tih\u00abe’ claim petition<\/p>\n
in part and   <\/p>\n
4,.” “”” “i”*his_ “been preferred by the
\ninsurance 04.companjy._:’~all’egi\u00abng that, the petitioners<\/p>\n
misrepresented” that, AL’.inVg’araju, aged about 58 years died<\/p>\n
’00”-.on V-ot3.o,3:.2oo7 pe”l’l\u00abant, the accident is manipulated one to get<\/p>\n
compensation for the death of chronic diabetic<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
\/1<\/p>\n
nephropathy patient Lingaraju. According to the appellant,<\/p>\n
the owner of the car i.e., the 2″” respondent in the claim<\/p>\n
petition, has also joined hands in the process of <\/p>\n
wrongfuf award against the insurance com;”pa’ny;’—.!:_i5y___’*_<\/p>\n
misrepresenting the facts. It is alleged that–,~the::decea\u00absed_:u  <\/p>\n
was a person of political background  hius.:d.eperid:ents_u.A<\/p>\n
ie, the petitioners, have rnal__r_iaged._’t”o
\nrecords and post mortem report~\u00ab..V’gto_Vsuit” claim,
\nwhich has resulted in  and
\nwrongful liability on <\/p>\n
5,” tttt tli’Alan.g  t’he.V.:’appealV,”‘IlV.A No.2\/2008 has been
\nfiled underlOrde-rV14il’:_:~R’U’l’Fl:lt2?\u00abofC.P.C, seeking permission<\/p>\n
to produce twoV_V’do.c’um’enVt’s i.e., death summary issued by<\/p>\n
 ‘=Bhag.a{wa;n M\u00bba.havee’r”3ain Hospital in respect of B.Lingaraju<\/p>\n
 accident’s report prepared by the motor<\/p>\n
vehiclle  The petitioners have filed objections to<\/p>\n
%l’~..\u00ab.4_”vI.A.No.2\/21008 contending that, the averments made in the<\/p>\n
   in support of the application are false and created<\/p>\n
 to? suit the convenience of wrong defence taken by the<\/p>\n
XX.’<\/p>\n
6<\/span>
\ninsurance company ~ appellant and hence, the prayer for
\nproduction of additional evidence be refused.<\/p>\n
6. Sri B.C.Seetharama Rao, learned advocate<\/p>\n
appearing for the appellant ~ insurance company \\i’.”O_tJ|d<\/p>\n
vehemently contend that, though the accident_wa”l:|eg\u00e9’d.,l.y..V<\/p>\n
took place on 02.03.2007, the police  it<\/p>\n
resorting to acts of manipulation andfrazid  regiVsvt.eredfonVl7;<\/p>\n
05.03.2007 and the alleged injyuredlidied-_lon 06.703′;2o.07″–l.0″~iff*.<\/p>\n
is contended that, the petitione–r.s””‘have “played, the 0′<\/p>\n
MACT, have suppressed,’ thei””trLie’ufacts,ltwithheld the<\/p>\n
materialv’docurt\u00a7.entAs:(‘evi:lde.n’ce alndlllhave obtained an award
\nagainst illegally. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
contended lat”i~.a_t,v.theA\u00b0.de’c’eased was a known case of<\/p>\n
.—.,.,hyp’e.rtei..;.5ion, diabetesymallites, CRF, diabetic nephropathy<\/p>\n
onVrnairiteinance’jhaemodialysis and though there was no<\/p>\n
acci.d’entva.t’aiiiinvolving the car, which was insured by the<\/p>\n
il’~.~.._’H.appeliantA;1- a fake accident has been brought into picture<\/p>\n
  “~l.’ap.dg”t’aking advantage of death of Lingaraju, by resorting to<\/p>\n
  acts of manipulation, the claim petition has been filed and<\/p>\n
\/\u00ab<\/p>\n
by playing fraud on the tribunal, an award has been<\/p>\n
obtained, which becomes clear from the <\/p>\n
evidence, which has been proposed to be <\/p>\n
seeking permission of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
7. Per contra, Sri Ch’a,nd–.r_’as”hel{ar’,’<\/p>\n
advocate appearing for the respo’adents 1__ &2\u00bb~j”pet’i’tieiiers
\ncontended that, the case put :fortfri._iri–._._I.A..i’\\io–.:2\/2,Ci\u00a7O8 and
\nthe appeal are altogether\ufb02newtcaseu.’:w.h\u00a7:’eh~.. has come into
\nexistence in the appeal and  much less
\ncontested   and hence, the
\nappellant ‘h1a3riV5n_ot’:::\u00a7i\u00a7’e  raise the contentions
\nwhich are  taken in the statement<\/p>\n
of obj,e’ctions”‘wfiledto t’heVi”claim petition before the MACT.<\/p>\n
“J”\u00abi.,eaI’=ned2,__cou~n,sel con’te’nded that, Pws -1 & 2 were cross~<\/p>\n
 by the learned counsel, who<\/p>\n
rep’resent_ed insurance company and nothing material<\/p>\n
 eliciyted to doubt about the accident or the death of<\/p>\n
  ‘itingparaju, who sustained injuries in the motor vehicle<\/p>\n
 –..\ufb01’aci}:ident and despite taking treatment, died at the hospital.<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
Z<\/p>\n
Learned counsel contended that, the insurance company<\/p>\n
has taken untenable stand in the appeal, oniy to delpiriyhe<\/p>\n
the benefit of legitimate award passed by <\/p>\n
favour of the iegal representatives of the _decAefased:,: who’  <\/p>\n
has died on account of sustaining the injufries in_’the’~.r’ncoVtor, f<\/p>\n
vehicie accident caused on acc’o_unt oftiiyaction\u00e9ible <\/p>\n
negligence on the part of the ii””ij._V”:respon’d-en:t’in the claim
\npetition. Learned counsel,\u00ab–mai_dei.submiywssions  support of
\nthe findings and_concluAs.io,n_s–.,ottitibu’nal,5..’i,n5’the impugned<\/p>\n
3’udgment\/aW,a,,itj_,’::::~i.’_.\n<\/p>\n
8} “””  E”iglit\ufb01}\/e’.:E1\u00e9l’!i:S’\u20aca iheiiecm. It is true that, the
\ncase asvxlsought  in this appeal and LA<\/p>\n
i\\io.2[2D08  not t’ivie””case of the insurance company<\/p>\n
‘ V”-before the i:ribunal;”””‘However, the insurance company has<\/p>\n
,aen\u00a7iea :al.lLthie,.:a_\u00a7,iegations made in the ciaim petition. In<\/p>\n
 support of LA No.2\/2008, the insurance<\/p>\n
“i..,compa’n_yii~has stated that, the impugned award has been<\/p>\n
‘i”obtai’i_ied by misrepresenting the facts on the basis of<\/p>\n
  manipulated records. According to the insurance company,<\/p>\n
*2<\/p>\n
I0<\/p>\n
settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court that “fraud
\nand justice never dweil together”. It is also said<\/p>\n
eisewhere, “no judgment of a court, no order of a m,ir.\u00bb.iste_r<\/p>\n
can be aliowed to stand if it has been obtainedfby–\u00ab’fifa,uVtif;’.:.<\/p>\n
for fraud and un~rave|s everything”. The cont-e.nti~on’*~.ur’geci_:it  <\/p>\n
for consideration by the iearned adyocate. .’<\/p>\n
insurance company, prima~f.acie.V apVpea’i’sVto’V:”Vo;e:
\nwhen read with the contents   produced
\nalong with LA  cannot be
\nstraight away accepted’as,’add’iv.ti\u00a7l%,\u00a3fIa’i”‘veyiidence and acted
\nupon, which   hearing to the
\npetitioners  ‘documents or to lead further<\/p>\n
evidence.\u00abFThe_ peti.tiAorie:rss.”have a right to question the<\/p>\n
 autheintvicrity of V’th.e:documents now sought to be produced<\/p>\n
  inisura\u00e9ynce company and they shouid not be deprived<\/p>\n
of re-asoxn  e  rtu n i ty.\n<\/p>\n
   the case of S.P.Chengaivaraya Naidu (dead)<\/p>\n
it 1,35 Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs and others, reported<\/p>\n
No.2\/2008. The allegations made by the insurance<\/p>\n
company cannot be brushed aside without probing to”—.the<\/p>\n
matter. If an enquiry is held into the matter by<\/p>\n
by giving opportunity of hearing to both sides,   M<\/p>\n
will occasion to either of the parties” ‘ar~..dg_ ‘endsfovfl_just\u00e9’cex””.<\/p>\n
would be well secured. If the insurance companyzisy<\/p>\n
provided with an opportunity ‘t.o””subst’antiatej”_its’;cases’ as
\nDut forth in this apll-exal, lead””to*’\u00a7serious
\nmiscarriage of justice. lnae  respondents
\nherein\/petitioners:Qwoul(ii_AVV’n\u00a7t\ufb02::be::VAdt\u00e9fe\ufb01fedn granting an
\nopportunity to produce its
\nevidence’ aparttroifni:cro’s’s.;:e’><a'm'inEng PW.1 and PW.2. The<\/p>\n
interest of'-the petitior:ie\u00bb~rsi""_could be protected by directing<\/p>\n
 the  to aV'ffo_rdV reasonable opportunity of hearing to<\/p>\n
 place thveir eyidence as well and also cross~examine the<\/p>\n
y\u00a7:i.tn'ess\u00e9s\u00abo\u00a7_tri~e"i"nsurance company.<\/p>\n
 "the"result, I allow this appeal, aside the impugned<\/p>\n
it "gyudgmyenyt\/award passed by the MACT and direct the MACT<\/p>\n
–j’_-to’-consider the claim put forth by the petitioners afresh,<\/p>\n
‘tr,<\/p>\n
.\u00ab s<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
after affording reasonable opportunity to the insurance
\ncompany to substantiate its allegations. The insurance<\/p>\n
company is at liberty to file additional statem.en\u00bbt:”o_f<\/p>\n
objections. If found necessary, the MACT is at:’_:’li’b’ert;y:<\/p>\n
raise additional issue. Opportunitymmay _to_:u  <\/p>\n
both sides to lead evidence in respect ;_of\u00abythesi,r.’irrirespedtivieiif<\/p>\n
cases. The parties are directed -to ap’pe’a”i’ in on
\n01.03.2010 and receive furthev;r’*b:rd.e’vrsViifrothfjthei MACTL
\nSince the learned  parties have
\nundertaken to keep theircli_ent.s–.VVpireseinitkbefore the MACT
\non 01.03.2014.VG_;4ti:.ie.re  MACT to issue
\ncourt  Both parties shall co~<\/p>\n
operate  lithe”trib.uria’l”_;.for the early disposal of the<\/p>\n
 matt,e\u00a7r.’V MACTV’is.._diVrect:ec:l to dispose of the matter before<\/p>\n
i’  is .rna_.de clear that, any observations made in this<\/p>\n
%\u00b0*-…_”j,udgme’nt_\u00b01shall not be construed as expression of opinion<\/p>\n
   merits of the matter and the tribunal shall decide<\/p>\n
.   matter on its merit. W<\/p>\n
-.4<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
The amount in deposit in this appeal is ordered <\/p>\n
refunded to the appeilant.\n<\/p>\n
Registry is directed to retumaathe   V<\/p>\n
without any deiay.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt A Dhanalakshmi on 6 February, 2010 Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 6″?” DAY OF FEBRUARY, 203.0 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA'<'.GOW'{5VAR H M.F.A.NO.10909\/20vO8"(M\\j_) BETWEEN: Nationa\ufb01 Insurance 03., Ltd., Do~2, La\ufb01bagh Road, Through its Regionai OffEic.\u00e9A;– _ […]<\/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-241245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNational Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt A Dhanalakshmi on 6 February, 2010 - 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-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010\" \/>\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 Smt A Dhanalakshmi on 6 February, 2010 - 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-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-01T17:01:34+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\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt A Dhanalakshmi on 6 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-01T17:01:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1623,\"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\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010\",\"name\":\"National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt A Dhanalakshmi on 6 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-01T17:01:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt A Dhanalakshmi on 6 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@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 Smt A Dhanalakshmi on 6 February, 2010 - 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-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt A Dhanalakshmi on 6 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-01T17:01:34+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\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt A Dhanalakshmi on 6 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-01T17:01:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010"},"wordCount":1623,"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\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010","name":"National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt A Dhanalakshmi on 6 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-01T17:01:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-a-dhanalakshmi-on-6-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt A Dhanalakshmi on 6 February, 2010"}]},{"@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\/241245","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=241245"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241245\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=241245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=241245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=241245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}