{"id":251991,"date":"2002-01-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-01-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002"},"modified":"2016-04-25T15:09:00","modified_gmt":"2016-04-25T09:39:00","slug":"new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002","title":{"rendered":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C.M. Jaya & Ors on 17 January, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C.M. Jaya & Ors on 17 January, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: S V Patil<\/div>\n
Bench: Cji, Syed Shah Quadri, U.C. Banerjee, S.N. Variava, Shivaraj V. Patil.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 4566-4567  of  1996\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nC.M. JAYA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t17\/01\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nCJI, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, U.C. Banerjee, S.N. Variava & Shivaraj V. Patil.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
Shivaraj V. Patil J.\n<\/p>\n
These appeals are placed before us pursuant to the
\norder of reference made in New India Assurance Co. vs.
\nC.M. Jaya and others [(1999) 2 SCC 47], which reads: –\n<\/p>\n
“The question involved in these appeals
\nis whether in a case of insurance policy
\nnot taking any higher liability by
\naccepting a higher premium, in case of
\npayment of compensation to a third party,
\nthe insurer would be liable to the extent
\nlimited under Section 95(2) or the insurer
\nwould be liable to pay the entire amount
\nand he may ultimately recover from the
\ninsured.  On this question, there appears
\nto be some apparent conflict in the two
\nthree-Judge Bench decisions of this Court
\n (1) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.\n<\/p>\n
Shanti Bai [(1995) 2 SCC 539] and (2)
\nAmrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar<\/a>
\n[(1998) 3 SCC 744].\n<\/p>\n
2. In the latter decision, unfortunately
\nthe decision in New India Assurance case
\n(supra) has not been noticed though
\nreference has been made to the decision of
\nthis Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd.
\nv. Jugal Kishore<\/a> [(1988) 1 SCC 626], which
\nwas relied upon in the earlier three-Judge
\nBench judgment.\t In view of the apparent
\nconflict in these two three-Judge Bench
\ndecisions, we think it appropriate that
\nthe records of this case may be placed
\nbefore my Lord, the Chief Justice of India
\nto constitute a larger Bench for resolving
\nthe conflict.  We accordingly so direct.
\nThe record may now be placed before the
\nHon’ble the Chief Justice of India.”\n<\/p>\n
2.  In the first place, we think it appropriate to
\nhave a closer look at the three decisions referred to
\nin the above order.\n<\/p>\n
3.  In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai and
\nothers<\/a> [(1995) 2 SCC 539], the facts were that on
\n3.1.1989 the deceased Laxman Singh, who was sitting on
\nthe top of the bus with the permission of the bus
\ndriver, respondent No. 5, who hit a tree by his rash
\nand negligent driving.\tThe legal heirs of Laxman Singh
\nfiled claim for compensation amounting to Rs.7,81,000\/-
\nbefore the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.  The
\nTribunal, by its order, awarded compensation of
\nRs.1,10,000\/- together with interest and directed the
\ninsurance company (the appellant before this Court) and
\nthe respondent Nos. 4 and 5, being the owner and driver
\nof the bus, to pay the same.  The appeal filed by the
\nappellant before the High Court was dismissed.\tThe
\nshort question that came up for consideration before
\nthis Court was whether the appellant was liable to pay
\ncompensation to the tune of Rs.1,10,000\/- together with
\ninterest thereon in the light of the contention of the
\nappellant that its liability was limited to Rs.15,000\/-
\n.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe owner of the bus had taken a comprehensive
\ninsurance policy on the estimated value of the vehicle
\nat Rs.2,50,000\/-.  In the schedule of premium an
\nadditional payment of Rs.600\/- in respect of 50
\npassengers was shown.  The appellant-company contended
\nthat this additional payment @ Rs.12\/- per passenger
\nwas to cover its limited liability of 50 passengers
\nunder Section 95<\/a> of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for
\nshort ‘the Act’).\n<\/p>\n
Following the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
\nNew Delhi vs. Jugal Kishore and others<\/a> [(1988) 1 SCC
\n626] and referring to the provisions of Section 95<\/a> of
\nthe Act, the Court stated thus: –\n<\/p>\n
“These provisions were interpreted by
\nthis Court in the case of National
\nInsurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore<\/a>.
\nThis Court observed that even though it
\nis not permissible to use a vehicle
\nunless it is covered at least under an
\n“act only” policy, it is not
\nobligatory for the owner of a vehicle to
\nget it comprehensively insured.\t In
\ncase, however, it is got comprehensively
\ninsured, a higher premium is payable
\ndepending on the estimated value of the
\nvehicle.  Such insurance entitles the
\nowner to claim reimbursement of the
\nentire amount of loss or damage suffered
\nup to the estimated value of the vehicle
\ncalculated according to the rules and
\nregulations framed in this behalf.  It
\nhas further observed as under: –\n<\/p>\n
“Comprehensive insurance
\nof the vehicle and payment of
\nhigher premium on this score,
\nhowever, does not mean that
\nthe limit of the liability
\nwith regard to third party
\nrisk becomes unlimited or
\nhigher than the statutory
\nliability fixed under sub-\n<\/p>\n
section (2) of Section 95<\/a> of
\nthe Act.  For this purpose a
\nspecific agreement has to be
\narrived at between the owner
\nand the insurance company and
\nseparate premium has to be
\npaid on the amount of
\nliability undertaken by the
\ninsurance company in this
\nbehalf.”\n<\/p>\n
In the present case, therefore, a
\ncomprehensive policy which has been
\nissued on the basis of the estimated
\nvalue of the vehicle of Rs.2,50,000 does
\nnot automatically result in covering the
\nliability with regard to third party
\nrisk for an amount higher than the
\nstatutory limit.”\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
The Court went on to say that “The mere fact that the
\ninsurance policy is comprehensive policy will not help
\nthe respondents in any manner.\tAs pointed out by this
\nCourt in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
\nJugal Kishore<\/a>, comprehensive policy only entitles the
\nowner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of
\nloss or damage suffered up to the estimated value of
\nthe vehicle.  It does not mean that the limit of
\nliability with regard to third party risk becomes
\nunlimited or higher than the statutory liability.  For
\nthis purpose, a specific agreement is necessary which
\nis absent in the present case.”\t In this view this
\nCourt allowed the appeal and held that the liability of
\nthe appellant was limited to Rs.15,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
4.     The facts of the case in Amrit Lal Sood and
\nAnother vs. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and others<\/a> [(1998) 3
\nSCC 744], were that on 25.8.1970, the Fiat car owned by
\nthe second appellant collided with a goods carrier.
\nThe car was being driven by the first appellant, a
\nbrother of the second appellant.  The car was insured
\nwith the fifth respondent.  One Kishan Sarup Thapar,
\ntraveling in the car, got injured and was hospitalized
\nfor some time.\tHe made claim for Rs.1,25,000\/- as
\ncompensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
\nThe Tribunal awarded Rs.15,800\/- as compensation.  The
\nclaimant filed an appeal before the High Court for
\nenhancement of compensation.  The insurer (fifth
\nrespondent) filed appeal disputing its liability to
\nsatisfy the claim.  In claimant’s appeal compensation
\nwas enhanced to Rs.20,800\/-.  In the appeal filed by
\nthe insurance company the learned Judge held that the
\nclaimant was a gratuitous passenger traveling in the
\ncar and, therefore, the insurance company was not
\nliable.\t Two Letters Patent appeals were filed\tone by
\nthe legal representatives of the claimant and another
\nby the driver of the vehicle.  The appeal filed by the
\ndriver was dismissed and in the appeal filed by the
\nlegal representatives of the claimant compensation was
\nincreased to Rs.56,000\/- by the Division Bench of the
\nHigh Court.  The driver and the owner of the car filed
\nappeals in this Court.\tThe question that came up for
\ndecision before this Court was whether the insurer was
\nliable to satisfy the claim for compensation made by a
\nperson traveling gratuitously in the car.  In deciding
\nthis question the Court took the view that the
\nliability of the insurer in the case depends on the
\nterms of the contract between the insured and the
\ninsurer as evident from the policy.  Section 94<\/a> of the
\nMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 compels the owner of a motor
\nvehicle to insure the vehicle in compliance with the
\nrequirements of Chapter VIII of the Act.  Section 95<\/a> of
\nthe Act provides that a policy of insurance must be one
\nwhich insures the person against any liability which
\nmay be incurred by him in respect of death or bodily
\ninjury to any person or damage to any property of third
\nparty caused by or arising out of the use of the
\nvehicle in a public place.  The section does not
\nhowever require a policy to cover the risk to
\npassengers who are not carried for hire or reward.  The
\nstatutory insurance does not cover injury suffered by
\noccupants of the vehicle who are not carried for hire
\nor reward and the insurer cannot be held liable under
\nthe Act.  But that does not prevent an insurer from
\nentering into a contract of insurance covering a risk
\nwider than the minimum requirement of the statute
\nwhereby the risk to gratuitous passengers could also be
\ncovered.  In such cases where the policy is not merely
\na statutory policy, the terms of the policy have to be
\nconsidered to determine the liability of the insurer.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe relevant clauses of the policy are reproduced
\nin paragraph 6 of the said judgment.  Clause 1(a) under
\nSection II relating to liability of third party reads:-\n<\/p>\n
“1.\tThe Company will indemnify the
\ninsured in the event of accident caused
\nby or arising out of the use of the
\nmotor car against all sums including
\nclaimant’s cost and expenses which the
\ninsured shall become legally liable to
\npay in respect of<\/p>\n
(a) death of or bodily injury to any
\nperson but except so far as is
\nnecessary to meet the requirements of
\nSection 95<\/a> of the Motor Vehicles Act,
\n1939, the Company shall not be liable
\nwhere such death or injury arises out
\nof and in the course of the
\nemployment of such person by the
\ninsured.”\n<\/p>\n
Looking to this clause the Court in paragraph 8 has
\nheld: –\n<\/p>\n
“Thus under Section II(1)(a) of the
\npolicy the insurer has agreed to
\nindemnify the insured against all sums
\nwhich the insured shall become legally
\nliable to pay in respect of death of or
\nbodily injury to “any person”.\tThe
\nexpression “any person” would
\nundoubtedly include an occupant of the
\ncar who is gratuitously traveling in the
\ncar.  The remaining part of clause (a)
\nrelates to cases of death or injury
\narising out of and in the course of
\nemployment of such person by the
\ninsured.  In such cases the liability of
\nthe insurer is only to the extent
\nnecessary to meet the requirements of
\nSection 95<\/a> of the Act.\tInsofar as
\ngratuitous passengers are concerned
\nthere is no limitation in the policy as
\nsuch.  Hence under the terms of the
\npolicy, the insurer is liable to satisfy
\nthe award passed in favour of the
\nclaimant.  We are unable to agree with
\nthe view expressed by the High Court in
\nthis case as the terms of the policy are
\nunambiguous.”\n<\/p>\n
Distinguishing the judgment in Pushpabai Purshottam
\nUdeshi and others vs. Ranjit Ginning<\/a> & pressing Co. (P)
\nLtd. and another [(1977) 2 SCC 745], the Court observed
\nthat the said judgment was based upon the relevant
\nclause in the insurance policy, which restricted the
\nlegal liability of the insurer to the statutory
\nrequirements under Section 95<\/a> of the Act and so that
\ndecision had no application to the case as the terms of
\nthe policy stated in paragraph 6 of the judgment were
\nwide enough to cover a gratuitous occupant of the
\nvehicle.  The Court also referred to the case of Jugal
\nKishore (supra) in which it is held that though it is
\nnot permissible to use a vehicle unless it is covered
\nat least under “act only” policy, it is not
\nobligatory for the owner to get a comprehensive policy
\nbut it is open to the insurer to take a policy covering
\na higher risk.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThus, a careful reading of these decisions clearly
\nshows that the liability of the insurer is limited, as
\nindicated in Section 95<\/a> of the Act, but it is open to
\nthe insured to make payment of additional higher
\npremium and get higher risk covered in respect of third
\nparty also.  But in the absence of any such clause in
\nthe insurance policy the liability of the insurer
\ncannot be unlimited in respect of third party and it is
\nlimited only to the statutory liability.  This view has
\nbeen consistently taken in the other decisions of this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIn Shanti Bai’s case (supra), a bench of three
\nlearned Judges of this Court, following the case of
\nJugal Kishore, has held that (i) a comprehensive policy
\nwhich has been issued on the basis of the estimated
\nvalue of the vehicle does not automatically result in
\ncovering the liability with regard to third party risk
\nfor an amount higher than the statutory limit, (ii)
\nthat even though it is not permissible to use a vehicle
\nunless it is covered at least under an “Act only”
\npolicy, it is not obligatory for the owner of a vehicle
\nto get it comprehensively insured and (iii) that the
\nlimit of liability with regard to third party risk does
\nnot become unlimited or higher than the statutory
\nliability in the absence of specific agreement to make
\nthe insurer’s liability unlimited or higher than the
\nstatutory liability.\n<\/p>\n
7.  On a careful reading and analysis of the decision
\nin Amrit Lal Sood (supra), it is clear that the view
\ntaken by the Court is no different.  In this decision
\nalso, the case of Jugal Kishore is referred to.\t It is
\nheld (i) that the liability of the insurer depends on
\nthe terms of the contract between the insured and the
\ninsurer contained in the policy; (ii) there is no
\nprohibition for an insured from entering into a
\ncontract of insurance covering a risk wider than the
\nminimum requirement of the statute whereby risk to the
\ngratuitous passenger could also be covered; and (iii)
\nin such cases where the policy is not merely statutory
\npolicy, the terms of the policy have to be considered
\nto determine the liability of the insurer.  Hence, the
\nCourt after noticing the relevant clauses in the
\npolicy, on facts found that under Section II-1(a) of
\nthe policy, the insurer has agreed to indemnify the
\ninsured against all sums which the insured shall become
\nlegally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily
\ninjury to “any person”.\t The expression “any person”
\nwould undoubtedly include an occupant of the car who is
\ngratuitously traveling in it.  Further, referring to
\nthe case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi (supra), it was
\nobserved that the said decision was based upon the
\nrelevant clause in the insurance policy in that case
\nwhich restricted the legal liability of the insurer to
\nthe statutory requirement under Section 95<\/a> of the Act.
\nAs such, that decision had no bearing on Amrit Lal
\nSood’s case as the terms of the policy were wide enough
\nto cover a gratuitous occupant of the vehicle.\tThus,
\nit is clear that the specific clause in the policy
\nbeing wider, covering higher risk, made all the
\ndifference in Amrit Lal Sood’s case as to unlimited or
\nhigher liability.  The Court decided that case in the
\nlight of the specific clause contained in the policy.
\nThe said decision cannot be read as laying down that
\neven though the liability of the insurance company is
\nlimited to the statutory requirement, an unlimited or
\nhigher liability can be imposed on it.\tThe liability
\ncould be statutory or contractual.  A statutory
\nliability cannot be more than what is required under
\nthe statute itself.  However, there is nothing in
\nSection 95<\/a> of the Act prohibiting the parties from
\ncontracting to create unlimited or higher liability to
\ncover wider risk.  In such an event, the insurer is
\nbound by the terms of the contract as specified in the
\npolicy in regard to unlimited or higher liability as
\nthe case may be.  In the absence of such a term or
\nclause in the policy, pursuant to the contract of
\ninsurance, a limited statutory liability cannot be
\nexpanded to make it unlimited or higher.  If it is so
\ndone, it amounts to re-writing the statute or the
\ncontract of insurance which is not permissible.\n<\/p>\n
8.  In the light of what is stated above, we do not
\nfind any conflict on the question raised in the order
\nof reference between the decisions of two benches of
\nthree learned Judges in Shanti Bai and Amrit Lal Sood
\naforementioned and, on the other hand, there is
\nconsistency on the point that in case of an insurance
\npolicy not taking any higher liability by accepting a
\nhigher premium, the liability of the insurance company
\nis neither unlimited nor higher than the statutory
\nliability fixed under Section 95(2)<\/a> of the Act.\t In
\nAmrit Lal Sood’s case, the decision in Shanti Bai is
\nnot noticed.  However, both these decisions refer to
\nthe case of Jugal Kishore and no contrary view is
\nexpressed.\n<\/p>\n
9.  In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Lal & Ors<\/a>.
\n[1988 (supp.) SCC 506] looking to the insurance policy
\nthat the appellant had undertaken to indemnify the
\ninsured to the extent of Rs. 50,000\/- only, it was held
\nthat the High Court was in error in holding that the
\nappellant was liable to pay the entire amount of
\ncompensation which was more than Rs. 50,000\/- and that
\nthe liability of the appellant was limited to Rs.
\n50,000\/.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIn a recent judgment in National Insurance Co.
\nLtd. vs.  Nathilal & Ors<\/a>. [1999 1 SCC 552], this Court,
\nfollowing the case of Jugal Kishore aforementioned,
\nheld that in view of the fact that no extra premium was
\npaid towards unlimited liability as could be seen from
\nthe policy produced, the liability of the insurance
\ncompany was limited to Rs. 15,000\/-.  The Court set
\naside the award of the Tribunal and affirmed by the
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIn the premise, we hold that the view expressed by
\nthe bench of three learned Judges in the case of Shanti
\nBai is correct and answer the question set out in the
\norder of reference in the beginning as under:-
\n\tIn the case of insurance company not taking any
\nhigher liability by accepting a higher premium for
\npayment of compensation to a third party, the insurer
\nwould be liable to the extent limited under Section
\n95(2)<\/a> of the Act and would not be liable to pay the
\nentire amount.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tIn these appeals presently before us, the judgment
\nand order of Delhi High Court are under challenge.  The
\ndeceased was riding the pillion seat of a two-wheeler
\nwhen it met with a truck insured by the appellant.  On
\nthe claimants approaching the Motor Accident Claims
\nTribunal, it awarded a sum of Rs.1,03,360\/- as
\ncompensation and held that the liability of the
\nappellant was limited to Rs.50,000\/- and the balance
\namount was recoverable from the driver and owner of the
\ntruck jointly and severally.  The truck owner (the
\nrespondent no. 4) preferred an appeal to the High
\nCourt.\tThe High Court held that the liability of the
\nappellant was unlimited as the vehicle was
\ncomprehensively insured.  The High Court also allowed
\ncross-objections preferred by the claimants\/Respondents
\nNos. 1 to 3 solely against the appellant under Order
\nXLI Rule 22 CPC for the full pecuniary liability to be
\nplaced upon the insurer while enhancing the amount of
\ncompensation from Rs.1,03,360\/- to Rs.3,60,000\/- with
\ninterest @ 15% per annum from the date of application.
\nHence, these two appeals are brought by the appellant,
\naggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court.
\nThe submissions were made before us by the learned
\ncounsel for the parties in support of the respective
\ncontentions citing the decisions aforementioned as to
\nthe extent of liability of the appellant to pay the
\namount of compensation to Respondents 1 to 3.
\nIt is not in dispute from the admitted copy of the
\ninsurance policy produced before the Court that the
\nliability of the appellant is limited to Rs.50,000\/- in
\nregard to the claim in question.  The relevant clause
\nin the policy relating to limits of liability reads:-\n<\/p>\n
Limits of Liability: Limit of the amount of the
\nCompany’s liability under Section II-1(i) in respect
\nof any one accident.\t\t   –\tRs. 50,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Limit of the amount of the Company’s liability under
\nSection II-1(ii) in respect of any claim or series of
\nclaims arising out of one event\t   –\t Rs. 50,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
It is also not the case that any additional or higher
\npremium was paid to cover unlimited or higher liability
\nthan the statutory liability fixed as found in the term
\nof the policy extracted above.\tIn the light of the law
\nstated above, it necessarily follows that the liability
\nof the appellant is limited to Rs.50,000\/-, as was
\nrightly held by the Tribunal.  The High Court committed
\nan error in taking the contrary view that the liability
\nof the appellant was unlimited merely on the ground
\nthat the insured had taken a comprehensive policy.  In
\nShanti Bai’s case, this Court has clearly expressed the
\nopinion that a comprehensive policy issued on the basis
\nof the estimated value of the vehicle does not
\nautomatically result in covering the liability with
\nregard to third party risk for an amount higher than
\nthe statutory limit in the absence of specific
\nagreement and payment of separate premium to cover
\nthird party risk for an amount higher than the
\nstatutory limit.  This position is accepted in Amrit
\nLal Sood’s case as well though no reference is made to
\nthis case.  As already stated above, in Amrit Lal
\nSood’s case, the Court found an express term in the
\npolicy for covering wider risk and to meet the higher
\nliability unlike in the case of Shanti Bai.  Therefore,
\nthe High Court was not right in holding that the
\nliability of the appellant insurance-company was
\nunlimited merely on the ground that the vehicle in
\nquestion, i.e., the truck, was covered by a
\ncomprehensive insurance policy.\n<\/p>\n
13.  In the circumstances, we hold that the liability
\nof the appellant insurance-company is limited to Rs.
\n50,000\/-, as held by the Tribunal.  In the view we have
\ntaken, it is unnecessary to go into the question
\nrelating to either maintainability of cross-objections
\nbefore the High Court against the appellant alone or as
\nto the enhancement of compensation when the owner and
\ndriver have not filed appeal against the impugned
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe appeals are, therefore, allowed to the extent
\nof limiting the liability of the appellant insurance-
\ncompany to Rs.50,000\/-, making it clear that it does
\nnot affect in any manner the liability of the
\nrespondents 4 and 5 (the truck owner and the driver) to
\npay the full amount of the award.  The judgment and
\norder of the High Court under challenge in these
\nappeals shall stand modified accordingly.  Parties to
\nbear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t………………………CJI<\/p>\n
\t\t……………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI]<\/p>\n
\t\t……………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t[U.C. BANERJEE]<\/p>\n
\t\t……………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t[S.N.VARIAVA]<\/p>\n
\t\t……………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL]
\nJanuary 17,2002.\n<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C.M. Jaya & Ors on 17 January, 2002 Author: S V Patil Bench: Cji, Syed Shah Quadri, U.C. Banerjee, S.N. Variava, Shivaraj V. Patil. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4566-4567 of 1996 PETITIONER: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: C.M. JAYA & ORS. DATE OF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-251991","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNew India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C.M. Jaya & Ors on 17 January, 2002 - 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\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C.M. Jaya & Ors on 17 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-25T09:39:00+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C.M. Jaya & Ors on 17 January, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-25T09:39:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3759,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002\",\"name\":\"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C.M. Jaya & Ors on 17 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-25T09:39:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C.M. Jaya & Ors on 17 January, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C.M. Jaya & Ors on 17 January, 2002 - 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\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C.M. Jaya & Ors on 17 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-25T09:39:00+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C.M. Jaya & Ors on 17 January, 2002","datePublished":"2002-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-25T09:39:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002"},"wordCount":3759,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002","name":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C.M. Jaya & Ors on 17 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-25T09:39:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-c-m-jaya-ors-on-17-january-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C.M. Jaya & Ors on 17 January, 2002"}]},{"@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\/251991","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=251991"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251991\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251991"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251991"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251991"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}