{"id":244780,"date":"2010-04-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010"},"modified":"2019-01-29T10:42:17","modified_gmt":"2019-01-29T05:12:17","slug":"the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Meenakshi … 1St on 15 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Meenakshi … 1St on 15 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated: 15\/04\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.1243 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.4 of 2009\n\n\nThe Oriental Insurance Company Limited,\nthrough its Branch Manager,\nOffice at Door No.555\/1, G.H.Road,\nTheni Town.\t\t               ... Appellant \/ 2nd Respondent\n\nVs\n\n1. Meenakshi\t\t... 1st Respondent \/Petitioner\n\n2. M.Murugesan\t        ... 2nd Respondent\/1st Respondent\n\n\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the\naward  made in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2004 dated 31.10.2007, on the file of the Motor\nAccident Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Sivagangai.\n\t\n!For Appellant     ... Mr.K.Baskaran\n^For Respondents   ... Mr.J.karthik\n\t\t       for Mr.R.Subramanian\n\t\t       for R.1\n\n\t\t\t* * * * *\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against
\nthe award  made in M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2004 dated 31.10.2007, on the file of the
\nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Sivagangai.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.  The tractor with a trailer of the second respondent was insured with
\nthe appellant Insurance Company.  The first respondent travelled on the mudguard
\nof the tractor on 24.11.2002.  According to the first respondent, the driver of
\nthe tractor drove the tractor rashly and negligently and she fell down due  to
\nthe same and the left front wheel of the trailer ran over the hip of the first
\nrespondent.  She received grievous injuries and suffered 48% permanent partial
\ndisability.  She was a coolie employed to load and unload the waste that was
\ncarried in the trailer.  She filed M.C.O.P.No.82 of 2004 claiming Rs.2,00,000\/-
\nas compensation.  The Tribunal passed an award dated 31.10.2007 granting
\nRs.60,000\/- with 7.5% interest and costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Heard Mr.K.Bhaskaran, learned Counsel for the appellant and
\nMr.J.Karthik for Mr.R.Subramanian, learned Counsel for the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The learned Counsel for the appellant is not questioning the quantum.
\nThe learned Counsel questions the liability.  The learned Counsel submits that
\nsince the first respondent sat on the mudguard of the tractor, the appellant is
\nnot liable to pay any compensation.  The learned Counsel for the appellant
\nrelies on a number of judgments of this Court and the Honourable Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the first respondent submits
\nthat since she was a coolie\/load woman, she is entitled to compensation as per
\nthe conditions of the policy itself.  Secondly, it is submitted that as far as
\nthe trailer is concerned she was a third party and therefore she is entitled to
\ncompensation.  The learned Counsel relies on the same judgments that were relied
\non by the Tribunal for awarding compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the
\nrecords.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. It is not in dispute that the first respondent travelled on the
\nmudguard of the tractor.  It is also not in dispute that she was a coolie and
\nthat the tractor took waste for the purpose of agriculture.  In these
\ncircumstances, whether the first respondent is entitled to compensation is the
\nsole question.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The learned Counsel for the appellant relies on the following judgments
\nin support of his submissions.\n<\/p>\n
(i) Sita Devi Vs. Dharambir and Others reported in III (2007) ACC 692\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ganapathi & Others
\nreported in AIR 2007(NOC)246(MAD)\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. D. Laxmanan and Others reported in
\n2007(1) AIR Kar R 159\n<\/p>\n
(iv)  Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Brij Mohan and Others reported in
\nIV(2007) ACC 254 (SC)\n<\/p>\n
(v) Bhav Singh Vs. Savirani & Others reported in AIR 2008 Madhya Pradesh Full
\nBench\n<\/p>\n
(vi) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Durga Prasad & Others reported in
\nAIR 2008(NOC)1437 (MP)\n<\/p>\n
(vii) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Durga Prasad & Others reported in
\nAIR 2009 (NOC) 1437\n<\/p>\n
(viii) IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sulochana & Others
\nreported in IV 2009 ACC 200\n<\/p>\n
(ix) United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Anguri devi and Others
\nreported in 2010(1) T.A.C. 136(MP)\n<\/p>\n
(x) Ramashiray Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others reported
\nin 2003(3) T.A.C.3(S.C.)\n<\/p>\n
(xi) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. V.Chinnamma & Others and\n<\/p>\n
(xii) National Insurance Company Vs. Parvathneni and another.
\nThe learned Counsel strenuously contends that if the injured travelled on the
\nmudguard of the tractor, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay
\ncompensation.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Before the Tribunal, four witnesses were examined on the side of the
\nfirst respondent injured and the documents Ex.P.1 to P.8 were marked.  On the
\nside of the appellant, one witness was examined and the Insurance policy was
\nmarked as Ex.R.1.  Ex.R.1 contains two policies, one for the tractor and the
\nother for the trailer. The policy relating to the tractor contains the following
\nrelating to the payment of premium.\n<\/p>\n
\t“SCHEDULE OF PREMIUM
\n\tB) LIABILITY TO PUBLIC-BASIC\t\tRs.507.00
\n\tADD:LEGAL LIABILITY TO PASSENGERS\tRs.  0.00
\n\tADD:Liability for
\n\t\tPaid Drivers\/Workmen No1\tRs. 15.00
\n\tADD:TPPD Cover for Unlimited Amount\tRs. 75.00
\n\tADD:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tLoading Act Premium\tRs.  0.00\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t———-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\tTotal of (B)\t\tRs.597.00
\n\t\t\tTotal Premium(A+B)\tRs.597.00\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t———–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
R.W.1 also admits that the policy covers work man, apart from a driver.  The
\ncross of examination of R.W.1 is extracted herein:\n<\/p>\n
“v.k.rh.M.1 ghyprpapy; ouhf;lUf;F xU oiuth; kw;Wk; BtiyahSf;F fhg;gPL
\nbra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10. As per the policy conditions, the Insurance Company collected the
\npremium for driver as well as for workman.  Here, admittedly the first
\nrespondent was a coolie and she was a work woman.  The policy relating to
\ntractor covers a coolie, who is supposed to travel in the tractor.  The Tribunal
\nalso had taken note of this fact and awarded compensation.  The Tribunal has
\nconsidered the judgment of this Court in  The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
\nVs. Mottaiammal and Others reported in 2007(1) CTC 234, wherein this Court has
\nupheld the award of the Tribunal in identical circumstances. Paragraph 10 of the
\nsaid judgment of this Court is relevant and the same is extracted herein:
\n“10. I have perused the insurance policy of the vehicle in question which is
\nmarked as Ex.R.1 where from it can be found that coolies\/driver\/cleaner are also
\ncovered under the policy of insurance for which a sum of Rs.16\/- has been paid
\nas premium.  In that view of the matter, the contention of the counsel for the
\nappellant-Insurance Company that the first respondent\/claimant is not covered
\nunder the policy of insurance, does not have legs to stand and as such, his
\nreliance on the decision of the Supreme Court does not have any relevance on the
\ncase on hand.  In view of these findings, I hold that the judgment of the
\nTribunal is not infirmed and I have no hesitation in confirming the same.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The following passage in paragraph 13 of the award of the Tribunal
\nbased on the judgment of this Court in  THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
\nVS ANSUYA AND OTHERS reported in 1990(1) TAC 79 is extracted herein:
\n“It has been held in 1990(1) TAC Page 79 The New India Assurance Company Limited
\nVs. Ansuya and Others, tractor towed with trailer would mean a motor vehicle
\nconstructed or adapted for the purpose of carriage of goods and therefore it is
\na goods vehicle and it is further held that the tractor and trailer is insured
\nfor the purpose of agricultural operation. Carrying the coolies for loading or
\nunloading is incidental to the purpose of agricultural operation.  They are not
\nbeing carried for hire or reward as a stage carriage but as an incident to their
\ncarrying on agricultural operations by the user of the goods vehicle, namely,
\ntractor-cum-trailer. Thereby, there is an implied authorisation for permitting
\nto carry the coolies in the tractor-cum-trailer when the vehicle is used for
\nagricultural operations.  In that circumstance, the insurance company is liable
\nto pay compensation for the injured or death of labourer is working in that
\ntractor-cum-trailer.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though the
\nfirst respondent was a coolie, the appellant is not liable to pay the
\ncompensation if the coolie travelled on the mudguard of the tractor.  He relies
\non the aforesaid judgments, referred to in paragraph 8 of this judgment.  These
\njudgments are considered hereinafter.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. This Court in Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
\nGanapathi and Others reported in AIR 2007(NOC)246 (MAD)  held that the injured
\ntravelled in the tractor was a gratuitous passenger and therefore not entitled
\nto compensation.  The following passage in paragraph 9 is extracted herein:
\n“9….On the other hand, it is the case of the claimants that on the date of the
\naccident, the deceased Arivazhagan had travelled in the tractor and fell down
\nfrom the tractor and sustained grievous injuries.  The learned Counsel for the
\nappellant would contend that the fact that the deceased Arivazhagan had
\ntravelled in the said tractor on the fateful day, was admitted by the claimants
\nand he had sustained grievous injuries due to the accident, resulting his death
\nand that the position of the injured was that of a gratuitous passenger,
\ntravelling in a goods vehicle and for the injury sustained by the said
\ngratuitous passenger, the insurance company is not liable to pay any
\ncompensation as per the dictum in New India Assurance company Limited V. Asha
\nRani and Others reported in 2003(ACJ I: (AIR 2003 SC 607).\n<\/p>\n
\t14. The next judgment of this Court is reported in Natonal Insurance
\nCompany Limited, Thanjavur Vs. Pavunammal reported in AIR 2009(NOC) 616 (MAD).
\nIn that judgment, also the plea of the claimants that they were load men was
\nrejected and this Court came to the conclusion that the claimants were students
\ntravelled in Bajaj Tempo Van. Paragraph 3 and a passage in paragraph 26 of the
\nsaid judgment are extracted herein:\n<\/p>\n
“3. Inviting the attention of this Court to the averments made in each of the
\nclaim petitions, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that when the
\nrespondents\/claimants have themselves admitted in their claim petitions that
\nthey did not travel either as load men or as owner of the goods, the Tribunal
\nhas grossly erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company.  The
\nsecond respondent\/owner of the vehicle has contested the claim petitions before
\nthe Tribunal and he is also on record in the present appeals.\n<\/p>\n
26… Admittedly, it is not the case of the respondents\/claimants in their
\npetitions that they travelled in the tempo van as owners of any goods or as load
\nmen \/load women or employed during the course of a contract of employment under
\nthe owner of Bajaj Tempo Van, the second respondent in these appeals.
\n.. Admittedly, the respondents\/claimants in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.52
\nand 53 of 2007 were students at the time of the accident and therefore, their
\ncontention that they were loadmen or owners of the goods is liable to be
\nrejected.”\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The other judgment of this Court is in IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance
\nCompany Vs. Sulochana and Others reported in IV 2009 ACC 200.  In that case, the
\npolicy does not cover the workman and in that context,  this Court held that the
\ncoolie employed in the tractor was not entitled to compensation.  The following
\npassage in paragraph 6 relevant for the purpose of the case is extracted herein:
\n“6….A careful reading of the Insurance Policy would show that for legal
\nliability to driver a premium of Rs.25 has been paid and next to it, a column
\navailable as “number of passengers” against which nothing is there.  Hence, even
\nif the vehicle is under insurance, the Insurer shall indemnify the vehicle owner
\nas regards the liability to driver alone and no body else.”
\nIn this case, the policy covers also one workman.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of the
\nHonourable Apex Court in  Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Brij Mohan and
\nOthers  reported in IV (2007) ACC 254 (SC).  In that case also, the claimant
\ntravelled as a passenger. Therefore, the Honourable Apex Court held that he is
\nnot entitled to compensation.  It is also held that the policy was for using the
\ntractor cum trailer for the purpose of agriculture, while the same was used for
\nbusiness purpose.  In that context, it is held that the Insurance Company was
\nnot liable.  However, the Honourable Apex Court directed the Insurance Company
\nto pay the amount and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the
\ntractor.  The following passage from paragraph 10 of the judgment is extracted
\nin this regard:\n<\/p>\n
“10…He was merely a passenger travelling on the trolley attached to the
\ntractor.  His claim petition, therefore, could not have been allowed in view of
\nthe decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd., V. Asha Rani &
\nOthers, III<\/a>(2002) ACC 753 (SC)=VII(2002)SLT91=2003(2)SCC 223.”\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The other judgment of the Honourable Apex Court relied on by the
\nlearned Counsel for the appellant is  National Insurance Company Limited Vs. V.
\nChinnamma and Others<\/a> reported in III(2004)ACC 1(SC).  In that case, the tractor
\nand the trailer was not used for agricultural purpose.  The deceased who
\ntravelled in the tractor cum trailer was a businessman dealing in vegetables.
\nFurther, the accident took place before 1994.  Hence, the contentions of the
\ndeceased that he was the owner of the goods (vegetables) and therefore, he was
\nentitled to  compensation  was rejected by the Honorable Apex Court holding that
\nonly after 1994, the owners of the goods travelled in the goods vehicle
\naccompanying goods are entitled to compensation payable by the Insurance
\nCompany.  The following passage from paragraph 16 of the said judgment is
\nextracted herein:\n<\/p>\n
“16…The deceased was a businessman.  He used to deal in vegetables.  After he
\npurchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to market for the purpose
\nof sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose.  The tractor and trailer,
\ntherefore, were not being used for agricultural purposes.  However, even if it
\nbe assumed that the trailer would answer the description of the “goods carriage”
\nas contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the case would be
\ncovered by the decisions of this Court in Asha Rani(supra) and other decisions
\nfollowing the same, as the accident had taken place on 24.11.1991 i.e. much
\nprior to coming into force of 1994 amendment.”\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Another judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant is
\nthe decision of a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Oriental Insurance
\nCompany Limited Vs. D.Laxman and Others reported in 2007(1) AIR Kar R 159.   In
\nthat case, the persons travelled in a trailer and some of them died and some of
\nthem were injured.  The trailer was admittedly not insured, while in this case
\nunder appeal, the trailer was insured.  Since, the trailer was not insured, the
\nclaim was rejected, though the persons travelled were coolies taken in the
\ntrailer.  Hence, it is of no use for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. The last judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant
\nis the unreported decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Oriental Insurance
\nCompany Vs. Nattbi Bai and Others.  He relied on the following passage of the
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
“The deceased was travelling on a tractor.  He was sitting on one of its
\nmudguards.  It overturned resulting in the accident.
\nIndisputably, the tractor was to be used only for agriculture purposes and not
\nfor carrying any passenger.\n<\/p>\n
Question in regard to liability of the Insurance Company, vis-a-vis, the
\npassenger travelling in a tractor which is not used for agriculture purpose came
\nup for consideration before this Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs.
\nChinnamma & Ors. 2004(8) SCC 697, wherein it was categorically held as under:
\n“14. An insurance for an owner of the goods or his authorised representative
\ntravelling in a vehicle became compulsory only with effect from 14.11.1994 i.e.
\nfrom the date of coming into force of amending Act 54 of 1994:
\nThe said legal principle is reiterated in relation to gratuitous passenger in
\nNational Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Boomithi Subbhayamma & Ors-2005(12) SCC 243. Yet
\nagain in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Vedwati & ors. 2007(3) SCALE 397, a
\nDivision Bench of this Court has clearly held that the liability of the insurer
\nwould be limited to a third party and not to a gratuitous passenger.”
\nThis passage is also against the appellant.  It is stated that indisputably the
\ntractor carried passengers while the tractor was supposed not to carry the
\npassengers.  In that case, the person who travelled in mudguard was not a coolie
\nbut was a passenger.  In that context, the Honourable Supreme Court has held
\nthat the person is not entitled to compensation from the Insurance Company.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. The other judgments relied on by the appellant are also of no use, as
\nthose cases, injured\/deceased travelled as passengers in goods carriage.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. As already stated, it is not in dispute that the first respondent was
\na coolie and that she was taken in the tractor for the purpose of doing
\nagricultural work. The following passage in the F.I.R.  is extracted herein:
\n“vd; mz;zp kPdhl;rp bfhl;lhk;gl;o Kf;ifah kfd; KUBfrd; vd;gtuJ ouhf;lhpy; Btiy
\nghh;j;J tUfpwJ. 24.11.02-k; Bjjp mjpfhiy vd; mz;zpa[ld; ehDk; Bkw;go ouhf;lh;
\nTN-59-D-2337 mjd; bla;yh;              TN-59-D-2338 tz;oapy; Fg;ig ms;Sk;
\nBtiyf;F BghapUe;Bjd;.  Bkw;go ouhf;liu kyk;gl;o nsA;F kfd; Kj;Jf;fhis Xl;o
\nte;jhh;. mjpfhiy 02.00 kzpf;F Btl;ilad;gl;o fz;khapy; Fg;ig ms;sp, rutzd;
\nBjhg;gpy; nwf;fp tpl;L Btl;ilad;gl;o gs;sp mUBf tistpy; tUk;BghJ vd; mz;zp
\noiuth; rPl;Lf;Fg; gf;fj;jpy; nUe;jJ. oiuth; tistpy; mjpBtfkhft[k;,
\nftdf;Fiwthft[k; xl;o te;jjhy; mz;zp fPBH tpGe;J tpl;lJ. mg;gt[k; Xl;Leh;
\nftdpf;fhky; Xl;oajhy; Bkw;go ouhf;lhpd; nlJ Kd; rf;fuk; vd; mz;zpapd; nLg;gpy;
\nVwp nwA;fpajhy; tz;oia epWj;jpg; ghh;j;jBghJ vd; mz;zpf;F nLg;gpYk;, tyJ fhy;
\nbjhil, jiyapd; gpd;g[wKk; uj;jf; fhaA;fs; Mfp nUe;jJ.”\n<\/p>\n
\t22. The first respondent and P.W.4 categorically stated before the
\nTribunal that the first respondent was employed as a coolie in the<\/p>\n
tractor.  Even assuming that the accident is caused by the trailer, it could be
\neither taken that the  injured was a third party to the trailer or the injured
\nbeing a coolie is entitled to compensation as the tractor with trailer fits in
\nthe definition of goods carriage.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the award.
\nHence the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.  Consequently, the connected
\nMiscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
ssl<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
\nDistrict Court, Sivagangai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Meenakshi … 1St on 15 April, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 15\/04\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN C.M.A.(MD)No.1243 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.4 of 2009 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Office at Door No.555\/1, […]<\/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-244780","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Meenakshi ... 1St on 15 April, 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\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Meenakshi ... 1St on 15 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-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=\"2010-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-29T05:12:17+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=\"15 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-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Meenakshi … 1St on 15 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-29T05:12:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2984,\"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-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010\",\"name\":\"The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Meenakshi ... 1St on 15 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-29T05:12:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Meenakshi … 1St on 15 April, 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":"The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Meenakshi ... 1St on 15 April, 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\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Meenakshi ... 1St on 15 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-29T05:12:17+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Meenakshi … 1St on 15 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-29T05:12:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010"},"wordCount":2984,"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-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010","name":"The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Meenakshi ... 1St on 15 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-29T05:12:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-meenakshi-1st-on-15-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Meenakshi … 1St on 15 April, 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\/244780","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=244780"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244780\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=244780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=244780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=244780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}