{"id":26621,"date":"2010-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010"},"modified":"2019-03-08T19:10:29","modified_gmt":"2019-03-08T13:40:29","slug":"the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Branch Manager vs Mahadev Pandurang Patil on 4 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Branch Manager vs Mahadev Pandurang Patil on 4 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: N.Kumar And Adi<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA CIRCUI1'. ]3E:NCH\nAT GULBARGA W   -.\n\nDATED THIS '1m\u00ab': 04\": DAY OF 0c'1'013}.2;:.':F\u00a7'.   --  \"\n\nPREsEN\u00a7\nTHE HON'BLE   \nTHE HON'BLE'   BEVADI\n\nV _:v:.1:r.A.:\u00a7J0L\":0993' V_200?_''{MV3\n\n, ....  \"~..v%\"I\\A.i'\u00e9?3Av.N0's;:i'0990 , 10991, 10992,\n' .. 9500 &_~.=1n'1_917'O'1'\u00ab' 2007 [MV]\n\nMFA   \nBET\\NEEN*.._  \" \" \"\n\n , 1. ..  BRANC-E~I_l\\\/EANAGER\n A - 'I'H.E NEW 1N01A'AssURANcE co LTD\n* -\u00bb _ BIJAPLER'; Now REP BY 08 REGIONAL\n )3\/:A;:\\1AG}5R,_lf1'HE NEW INDLA ASSURANCE co\n. '-.,L'rD. _.\"_RF;'GiONAL OFFICE, UNITY BUILDING\n'  AN1\\IEX-15,0? KALINGA RA0 ROAD.\n BA-3NGA.L0RE -27  APPELLANT\n\nV \" [By Sri. A N K.RISi--INA SWAMY. ADVOCATE}\n\n1'   MAIv\u00a3A1)::+:v PANDURANG PA'm.\nNOW AGED AI-BOUI' 29 YEARS\n000: AGRICULTUIAQAL 0001.15:\n\n\n\nR\/O. DFIOKALE DADDI\nBIJAPUR T ALUK.\n\nIx)\n\nABDULRAJAK IIUSSAIN.JA.M.A.K.HANWALE  '\nAGE MAJOR   \n\nocc: OWNER OFJEEIP V * ~\n\nR\/O. UMARANI ROAD, JAT}-I \n\nSANGLIDIST _    \" ~  \nMAnARASm'RA STA'I'E.\" _ I   REASPGIVJDENTS\n\n{By Sri. BABU H ME_'I'A\ufb01}_U--DDA '1:'G.1\u00a7{_'R1}'fg\n\nMFA FILED U\/S 17.3{1]G--.0? MV AGAINST THE\nJUDGEMENT AND AWARD\"V\u00bbI)ATEI)' '1.S.05'-.2007 PASSED IN\nMVC No.1021.._\/2.004 C1-N fl\"HE ~FILE._O'E\"':i'\\\/IEMBER, MAcT--1H,\nBIJAPUR. Aw3.AR1\u00a7ING.,A C_0MpE:NSA*1'IG'N OF RS.3,05,260\/-\nWITH 1N'i'E;RE,'E5_T @\"3E30\/c)\"-P--;.A;'~~.F\u00a3?_Oi'\/I THE DATE OF PETI'I'ION\nFILLDEPOS\u00a3f1'.'5.. ;j_ ' '  .  \n\nMFA  :G990}\"20.oF\/': _ \nBETWEENV_\" _ ' I' 4' \"\n\nTHE BRANCH A\/1ANAG'ER\"\" I\nTHE?' INDIA ASSURANCE co LTD\n\n' I  'BIJAPUER; NOW REPWBIY ITS REGIONAL\n\n*MA-NAGEP, '7EfI:IE}_ NEW INDIA ASSURANCE} CO\n\n -.L\"i'1Z>..I IGN,ALj..oFI\u00ab'1c\u00a32. UNITY BUILDING\n\nANNEXE.' --KA;LTNGA RAO ROAD.\nBANGALO  +27 ... APPELLANT\n\n'' '3{By Sri. A N KRISHNA SWAMY. ADVOCATE]\n\nI :5 KAMAL\n\nW\/O I'AI\\IDURANG BANDAGAR\nNOW AGED A80 UT 48 YEARS  _\n\n\n\nOCC;COOLIE3\nR\/O AN KDIIIIAL\nNOW R\/AT BIJAPUR\n\nEx.)\n\nROOPALI D \/O PANOLIRANO BANDAGAR   \"\nMINOR REPTD BY NATURAL C}-UARD LAN  _\nMOTHER THE IST RESPONDENT L:~Ra:IN.  <\/pre>\n
R\/O ANKDHAL ,
\nNOW R\/AT BIJAPUR ‘ ‘ ‘-\n<\/p>\n
3. ABDULRAJAK. HUSSAIN JAMKHANWALEV ii
\nAGE MAJOR   *
\nOCQOWNER OF JL:I:’P__ I
\nR\/O LIMARANI ROAD
\nJATI1.SAI\\:GL1II)ISf2.–._*- ‘  2
\nMAHARASHTRA Sf[‘AT_,Ej:  ‘  RI3SPONDENTS<\/p>\n
[By Sn.BAISU..I%1″.v-IvII3’IAO–LII3{)A_I?’OR_R1 SI R2: R3 SERVED)<\/p>\n
M_P’A–_ ‘1*’]’LI313″I-_VU’,’S”\u00bb1n’Fv3(i}~ OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
\nJUDGEMEN1′ ANI3j1IjAWA_RI>,.~~DAT13O 16.06.2007 PASSED 1N
\nMVC NO_6S’41″\/2004 ‘ON.I””..TI\u00bbII: FILE OF MEMBER, MACT~l1l.
\nBIJAFUR, AWARIJIINO-A”COMPENSATION OF RS.3.63’200\/–<\/p>\n
 ” IN*IfE?RI:S’T AT 6%..1?.._A= FROM THE DATE OF’ PETITION TILL
\nD1\u00a7;I’3OSIT’.  ~<\/p>\n
‘ ..MI<'_A 'NO: ,.1:00"9i  007:\n<\/p>\n
 THE IIRANCII MANAO ER
\n _   NEW INDiA ASSURANCE CO LTD<\/p>\n
BIJAPUR. NOW REP BY ITS REGIONAL<\/p>\n
I _ ‘ –Iv:AN.AOER, “FHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO
\n  1;jfI).. REGIONAL OFFICE. UNITY BUILDING
\n  __A.NNExI\u00ab:, P KALINGA RAO ROAI),<\/p>\n
BANGALORE ~-27  APPELLANT<\/p>\n
4%<\/p>\n
(By Sri. A N KRISHNA SVVAMY. ADVOCATE}
\nAND<\/p>\n
1. JAYAVVANTH PARASURAIVI CHAVAN
\nNOW AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
\nOCQAGRICULTURAL COOLIE
\nR\/O RANJANI NOW R\/A KANAMADI  A
\nBLJAPUR TALUK : A ‘ H ”\n<\/p>\n
rug<\/p>\n
PARU BAI w\/0 JAYAwANt1′ cHA’vrAN_
\nNOW AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS ‘
\nOCQHOUSEI–IOLD VVORK’~, ” -\u00ab .<\/p>\n
R\/O RANJAN1 NOW R \/A KANAMADI
\nBIJAPUR TALUK ,    –\n<\/p>\n
3. BAGYASHRI D \/0 RAi\\1Am–xf{1:’c1~:{A’vim\u00a7i’
\nNOW AGE1).;ABoL;T–1–9.3<EAR:3 " " <\/p>\n
QC'C"'{S="1*L.i'Vi3_1rs:N5F:f _  _
\nR\/_O Fu'3LNJ}'v\\.N_!_VNQVV\u00bb'R"\/P;'K15\\NPL1\\\/[ADI
\nBIJAPUR "1?A1;U__i<V_ w A'<\/p>\n
4. VINAYAK RAM-AHAR’}–‘CHAvAN
\n_;N”W AGEDABOUT 17 YEARS
\n EN-*1aev1IN0R REP BY THEIR NATURAL
\n. 3 GL1A’\u00a32_1:)iA_N FATHER JAYAWANTH PARASURAM
\n T ‘V VCI*-iAV’.{X1\\E. R\/O RANJANI NOW R\/A KANAMADI
\n B1’JAP_UR.”TAI.LJK<\/p>\n
5.  SH__AiLE’SH RAMAHARI CHAVAN
\nNOW AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
\nA’  O(3C:S'”I’UI_)ENT..\n<\/p>\n
HA\/IINOR REP BY ‘I’I~IEIR NATURAL
\n.tGUAR13;AN FAT1~1ER JAYAWANTH PARASURAM
\nCI”-IAVAN, R\/O RANJANI NOW R\/A KANAMADI<\/p>\n
BIJAPUR TALUK  \/’<\/p>\n
E I
\n3\/’<\/p>\n
C31<\/p>\n
6. ABDULRAJAKHUSSAIN<\/p>\n
JAMK1-I-IANWAIIE<\/p>\n
AGE MAJOR<\/p>\n
Occ;OwNER OF JFZEP<\/p>\n
R\/O UMARAMANI ROAD. JATI~l~~–._ _
\nSANGLI DIST. MAHARASHTRA  ‘   RES__PQNDENTS<\/p>\n
[By Sri. BABU H METAG_UDDA_EOR   V
\nR~4 & R~5 ARE I\\\/IINQRS REP. BY
\nR-6 SEIWED )  = <\/p>\n
MFA FILED U\/S’~..i73{‘1] O-F Ivw ACT AGAINST THE
\nJUDGMENT AND AWARD_.D.A’I:I5D:’I5;-06.2007 PASSED IN
\nMVC NO.907\/2004 ON “IfIIE’-FILE__..OEf~ME.MBER, MAc’1”–III.
\nBIJAPUR. AWARDING A~<:.OIvIREIxISA*IiIO'I\\I.'IOF RS.1,52.000\/w
\nWITH IN'1*ERES"I*A'E TI~;E RA::'E-4.OE'_jS0\/e RA. FROM THE DATE
\nOE PE"l'I'FION I:IfII.I.;'DD_EI?OSI"I'. ' <\/p>\n
MFA NQ:.iA09~9?I*2'O07O\u00a7    '.  '
\nBETWE_E_N_ O O O'   .\n<\/p>\n
THE   <\/p>\n
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE: CO LTD<\/p>\n
BIJAPGR. NOW REP BY ITS REGIONAL
\n1\\\/\u00a3AV_.E\\\ufb013I(3gE3’R. V TH E ‘NI4:I_7_I__\/_. INDIA ASSU RANGE CO<\/p>\n
  REGIONAI. OEEICE, UNITY BUILDING
\n ‘ANN.Ex.,E; I P ‘KALINGA RAO ROAD.\n<\/p>\n
~..EANGA.I;O.R’I-D.   APPELLANT<\/p>\n
  Sn. A N I<RISI-INA SWAMY, ADVOCATE}<\/p>\n
 .-  \u00b0;JAYAwAN'I*I-I PARASURAM CI-IAVAN<\/p>\n
NOW AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
\nOCC:AGRICLEIfI'URAL COOLIE
\nR\/O RANJANI NOW R\/A KANAMADI<\/p>\n
BIJAPUR TALUK KL<\/p>\n
O 'O  SANGLI DIST. IVIAHARASHTRA<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
PARU BAI W \/ O JAYAWANT CHAVAN
\nNOW AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
\nOCGHOUSEHOLD WORK<\/p>\n
R\/O RANJANI NOW R\/A KANAMADE
\nBIJAPUR TALUK<\/p>\n
BAGYASHRI D\/O RAMARAR1 CRAVAN
\nNOW AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
\nOCC:STUDE1\\T1′  G —   V
\nwe RANJANI NOW R\/A KANAMADI G  -:\n<\/p>\n
BIJAPUR TALUK   ..\n<\/p>\n
VINAYAK RAMAHAR1 CRAVAN<\/p>\n
NOW AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, .\n<\/p>\n
OCC;S’i’UDENT, MINOR REPBY THEIR NATURAL
\nGUARDIAN FATH}3R,IAYAWANTH’*RARAsURAM
\nCHAVAN. R\/G RANJAN1N0:Ar.R;4A..RKANAMAD1<\/p>\n
BZEJAI5UAR::GVTAI.;{:’\u00a7fK  ‘ –\n<\/p>\n
s”RA1L,Es::-1 _’  :3 HAVAN
\nNOW ‘.A*(3ED- AJ3.QuT— .1 6 YEARS
\n_OCC:STU’D.ENT. INOR REP BY THEER NATURAL<\/p>\n
__; GUARD IAN” FATH ER JAYAWANTI—I PARASURAM
\n C;_I:{A’JAN, R \/~—-~-RANJAN1 NOW R\/A KANAMADI<\/p>\n
BIJARUR TALUK<\/p>\n
–  LARAJAK HUSSAIN
\n‘ ‘ JAMI’;HANWALE
\n AGE;-MAJOR<\/p>\n
~OC1_C:OVVNER OF J I-BEEP
\nR f’ O UMARAMANI ROAD, JATH
\n RESPONDENTS<\/p>\n
{By Sri. EBABU H METAGUDDA FOR R~1 TO R\u00ab5)<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
{Q<\/p>\n
MFA NQ9500\/2007:\n<\/p>\n
IBETWEEN\n<\/p>\n
1. THE) ORIENTAL INSURANCE Go I;I’.Dj;  ”
\nGULBARGA D 0   ”\n<\/p>\n
THROUGH IIS REGIONAL .(_)FF1C.P_J
\nLEO SHOPPING COMPLEX_  ”\n<\/p>\n
44\/45 RESIDENCY ROAD  I
\nBANGALORE 25
\nREP.BYI’1’S M.ANA_GI~:R 5 _  .\n<\/p>\n
SR1 KVARADARAJANy- ‘–  A}   \u00a7;~\u00bb._APPE3LLAN”F<\/p>\n
{By S:I”i..__SAi\\I’JAY’ III  2II):If{I5CA’I’E)<\/p>\n
AND<\/p>\n
W.\/O M ‘SvR;_I..I<A;i2IVMIIIANGI —<\/p>\n
AGED ABOUT   ~ '<\/p>\n
R\/AT PLOT Nc;._VIVS8'~\\{I'MAIN<\/p>\n
V CROSS RAJA f?AJE,SI*iWARl NAGAR
\nABANGALQVREV.  ' <\/p>\n
–  SR1-A MO HAN AG ‘MAJOR
\n. V .. _S\/O’ARAMACHANDRAPPA MARGUTTI
\n” I _ ‘R,\/_AT::0NA:r’H TQ
\n~. “1..VGU’I;}3A_RG-A DIST
\n‘  0wNE:R_.0F JEEP No.IvII\u00ab~ImI7\/AM2 I71  RESPONDENTS<\/p>\n
 [By Sn’. 8 S SAJJAN SI-“IETTY FOR C\/R1}<\/p>\n
   jfI\\\/II\u00ab’A FILED U\/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE\n<\/p>\n
–  J~UDGEI\\\/IENT AND AWARD DATED 24.05.2007 PASSED IN<\/p>\n
~ “‘(SR.I>N.} &_ IVIACT. GUI.I3AI’2GA. AWARDING A COMPENSATION<\/p>\n
I\\\/IIVC NO370\/2006 ON “III–{I13 FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE<\/p>\n
“I t-O<\/p>\n
OF RS.3.32._OOO\/– INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM T1–1E”_OE
\nPET1TlON TILL RE3A.L1SA’l’1ON.   O’  .\n<\/p>\n
MFA NO. ‘1 191 7\/2007:\n<\/p>\n
BETWEEIN<\/p>\n
1. SMTMRAO1-1A V
\nW\/OM.SR1KARMUT1’ANG1.._  V
\nAGE 47 YEARS, OCC:SYN’DIC–A’I’E BANE,
\nEMPLOYEE, R\/O PLOT NO. 188,  ‘–\n<\/p>\n
v1MA1N.vcROss,~~__  _ <\/p>\n
RAJ RAJESHWAR NAGAR  ”\n<\/p>\n
BANGALORE ‘  = “-.f’\u00bb._’;.–..APPELLAN’I’
\n[By  :”:’~_ 5  AEVVVOCATE]
\nAND ‘  % V<\/p>\n
1. M\\:;1AA1Ar\u00a7’E3}A’EE?A_<\/p>\n
3\/ O KALE’-EAYAPPA.jl’E.NGAL1
\nAG}: 40 YEARS, ‘OCc;__:)*RIvE:R
\nR\/ O VSONAT1-1 “E1LLA.OE{sONT1-v1)
\nTQ D1sfr%CyULBAR(3A_}~<\/p>\n
.. AMOHAN S\/O .RAM.ACHANDRAPPA MARO UTFI\n<\/p>\n
– OGC.:OW’NER OFJEEP NO MM 17 A 2171
\n _ R\/O.S*QN–AT1—I[SONTH)Vll’,1;AGE
\n_ TQ’-D1:5T..(3’L.;1.\u00a33AR(}A<\/p>\n
3. ‘  ‘1’HE\u00bb.O’R_I’ENTAI, INSURANCE CO LTD
\nTl~E–RO'{;”Gi*1 {rs DIVISIONAL MANAGER
\nN,G;. COMPLEX. IST FLOOR
\nSTATiON ROAD<\/p>\n
” ,  “~\u00abOULBAROA  RESPONDENTS<\/p>\n
[By Sri. SANJAY E\\\/LJOSHI FOR R3:\n<\/p>\n
NOTICED TO RI DISPENSEIJ W1′]”I–1: R2 SERVED ) E<\/p>\n
MFA 1:113:31) U\/S 173(1) OF MV ACT. AGAI’i\\is_’*”\u00a7 ‘THE
\nJUDG1\u00ab;i\\\/11\u00ab:N’1* AND AWARD DATED 24.o5.200?’~~–P.AesiEii3_ IN
\nMvc: NO.37()\/2006 ON ‘1’:–{E FILE OF PRINCIPAEQ ‘e1v1L-JUDGE.
\n{SR.DN’.). MEMBER. l\\\/E.AC’l.’. GULBARGA. PA._m5i;y’ALLlQxv1’1 SE__i:’,Kl’NG’i. ‘
\nem-~1ANci31v1E:N*’1*F0R CC)MPENSA’l’;ION._ ‘  ” -I’    ” i ‘<\/p>\n
‘1’m\u00ab:s1~: MFAS. CCJMING ON FOR”‘OR.IJEi2S.::j4iiI\u20ac3 u[\u00a7A_Y’.*.<\/p>\n
KUMAR J.. DEIJVERED THE i**.Qi;.LOWI’NG:’  A-<\/p>\n
.gM_1; D
\nMFA Nos. 10993\/2007′.   i”o99_01\/_2.c5Q;_7. 10991 \/2007.
\n10992 \/2007 a.11<'il.#9:5OO}\/i preferred by the
\ninsurance  fasteri1iI1g of the liability on
\nthem  re*s'pe\u00bbciV.'vel:' Gillie occupants of a private. car.<\/p>\n
MFA N0. 1ul9_'l"?\/ appeal filed by the claimant who is<\/p>\n
 :'esp<::;n\ufb01lex.1ie iii IVi.I'1'A______l&\\'lr.).9500\/2007 seeking enhancement of<\/p>\n
"g ~ 23613.1pe:.1sa.t.i*Qri".~– . _<\/p>\n
 2. ‘~”fTl?;’e. question involved in all these cases is<\/p>\n
 ide’nt1<:al;.. They are taken up for eorisideration together and<\/p>\n
A iiisposed of by this conimon order.\n<\/p>\n
3. In all these cases. the cleeeased were occupants in<\/p>\n
21. j.)I”i\\’I:1l,t’. (‘E1I’. The owner’ of the Car had te,-lken a policy of<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
insurance as stipulated under Section 146 of _4vth:e-.._4TMotor<\/p>\n
Vehicles Act. 1988 (hereinafter referred to  <\/p>\n
‘Liability Only Policy’  the policy’ undei’>”Whic_hllhe “sotz.\u00a7h’t.Lll”‘<\/p>\n
coverage for third party’ risk only.\n<\/p>\n
4. In the claim petiti’o}’1. irisura.nce._ c:o_Ii”ipany was<\/p>\n
made a party. They did not disput\u00bbe__t.l1e accident, they also did
\nnot dispute the coverage” the Lve.hfclle.linyol.yed in the accident.
\nThe specific defence tialg\ufb01l\/1\\.4;_}.r:a’S Vthspg.t_, haye issued a policy.<\/p>\n
in terms of  ytrerel  to cover the risk of<\/p>\n
only tliirdllvpa,rties.’7f in “o.\u00a7he1′ *.A}foi”c[s. it is their case that, an
\noccupant in at privaiteVcarl’is_ln.ot a third party. The insured has<\/p>\n
not paid an”y..additi’onal premiuni to cover risk of an occupant.<\/p>\n
 .__as the ———- claims are preferred by the legal<\/p>\n
 Vreprese’ntatives’ of the occupants of a private car, the insurance<\/p>\n
con’ipianylisti’i1nder no obligation to indemnify the insured and<\/p>\n
 pay conipensatioii to the claimants in terms of Section 149 of<\/p>\n
l..:i:i\u00bbthei;A,ct. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, without properly<\/p>\n
 a’p’preciating this contention of the insurance company,<\/p>\n
proceeded on the assumption that, the insurance policy issued<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
covers the risk of an inmate of a car and therefore. insurance<\/p>\n
company is liable to pay co1’npensai.ion awarded an2ll’thei*e’i'”orei<\/p>\n
it proceeded to pass an award directing the irlsurance<\/p>\n
to pay the amount awarded. Agg’1’ieved__by   ‘the’<\/p>\n
insurance company is before this co’art..?:_’li ‘7<\/p>\n
5. The learned co’unsell.’i7o1′ the ap’p..3llantI~-.}3″insurance<\/p>\n
company, assailing thai. portion  the: award-..covntends, the
\ninsurance policy issued ‘the._ins’L1ranlceucompany covers the<\/p>\n
risk of third pasfucs. ‘\u00a7i’heV’oo(,alpani’V_ oi-‘  ijrivate car is not a<\/p>\n
third party  t.’ri~<{}\\.pexllConrt. Therefore, they are not
\nliable toipay the awarded in terms of the award<\/p>\n
passed by the rribu.nai,. '.l7l~.<1"e tribunal committied a serious error<\/p>\n
 ..n_1\u00b0is~;iiite1fpreting~–.t.h.e terms oi' the insurance policy and in<\/p>\n
 Vholding,thai;'~.tlie_ insurance policy covers the risk of inmates of<\/p>\n
the 'car wl1iE.:'h.i's factually incorrect and therefore. he contended<\/p>\n
 that,'  award of the tribunal in so far as fastening the<\/p>\n
\u00bbliabi.l.it'y on the i11S1.E1"c111CC company is liable to be set, aside.<\/p>\n
6. Per co1’1ira. learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
claimants contended. the word ‘third party’ has been defined to<\/p>\n
s<\/p>\n
ll \/'”\n<\/p>\n
L\/<\/p>\n
.12<\/p>\n
mean. it includes the G0Ver1’11’t1e:<it. The insured
\nparty, insi.ii'ai1ce company being the second
\npersons fail within the phraseology Qf.1.h_ird pari,y"[ ~
\nwhen once 21 third party risk is ccixreredias
\nSections 146 and 147 of
\niiable to answer the elairn of   are the iegai
\nheirs of the deceased  Car. He "further
\nsubmitted. in the ;itidgnievi1–t:.re|ieti_ei'_i 'iearned counsel for
\nthe insui'anee   not considered the
\nscope of    of the Tariff for Private
\nCar  the, judgment oi' the Apex Court
\nhas no a'pupi'icAat.ie.ii of this case. He also relies on<\/p>\n
the te.r_ms  Vpc.:–iiey.. itiiiich categorically states the limit of<\/p>\n
  of the-e.<1.H'1p211'1y liabiiity under Section [ii)~1[}) in<\/p>\n
'resp.eet:.._oif '\u00a31,115\/'V __o1ie accident as per Rules and therefore. he<\/p>\n
'.t?0i*il'\u20ac1}dS\u00ab,'V"_'{hti~,:.UCiCL1p&i"11. of a private car is a third party and<\/p>\n
 legal a.11Vd'i~d<) not call for any interference.<\/p>\n
aCC().fdiI\u00a7g'i}?i:?E.A1]\u20ac iiability foisted by the tribunal is valid and<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
7. In the light of the aforesaid contei1_tio.rist.’
\nthat arises for our eonside1*-ation in this appeal –,?.s.:’as ”
\nWhether an occupant\/
\nprivate car is (1 third_ partti\/’i__V_’.defirie_fiA”
\nSection 145(9) r\/w. S\u20ac(5:!t:}:fi~..i46 ofthe aeiirf\n<\/p>\n
8. Chapter Xi\ufb01oi’ the with  of motor
\nvehicles against third\u00bb     ‘third party’ has
\nbeen defined under” SeCt;i’o1′:.\u00ab  as under:
\n.1   trieit:d:e3i–t’Fie Government.
\nSeCti0ri”i_&1Z1-fe_3 states. deals with ‘necessity for<\/p>\n
insurancexaghaiiilst-thireivgiarty risk’. Section 147 of the Act<\/p>\n
 V. y_ deaEs.vuji_t.h the ‘req11.i1ietnent of the policies and limits of liability’<\/p>\n
VSeie_vtfior1.._i2i$_3_ deals with the ‘duty of the insurers to satisfy<\/p>\n
the’judgm-ents=Vand awards against persons insured in respect<\/p>\n
of  party risks’. No person shall use, except as a<\/p>\n
V’ passenger. or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor<\/p>\n
 ‘V’-ehiele in a public: piaee. uniess there is any force in<\/p>\n
 “relation to the use of the vehicie by that person or that otheg\/__<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
person. as the case may be. a policy of insurance complying<\/p>\n
with the requirements of this Chapter. Once thet..iri-saurance<\/p>\n
policy is issued by a person who is an authorized’ins_ure’r;arid<\/p>\n
such policy is issued. insuring persons 1’efcr.red.V  in stiiig <\/p>\n
section [i) of Section 147, then, the liaiailjitygoifnthei’insurerdis ‘<\/p>\n
unlimited as far as third partyis coricerned arid respect of,<\/p>\n
the damage to any property  concerrred ‘:pa:r:\u00a7ty, it is up
\nRs.6,000\/-. So it is’;ia\ufb01”\u00ab.thi.s \u00a2.d:iie;ii;’~~s_ye haye\ufb02 to find out
\nwhether an ir1mate\/ passepnggei’   of a private car<\/p>\n
is a third       <\/p>\n
‘E;\/\/, ‘ The   the case of New India Assurance<\/p>\n
Co.Ltd. vs’.\u00bb._Sa.t:paa’singh  Ors. reported in 2000 AG} 1 SC<\/p>\n
. _ A exp.lainin*g the Vnieaning of the word ‘third party’ held as under:<\/p>\n
    result is that under the new Act an
\n‘7.__tirisiipmrice’Jdpoticy covering third party risk is not
\nrequired to exclude gratuitous passenger in a
\n‘ve__hicie. no matter that the vehicle is of any type or<\/p>\n
it \u00ab.,_ciass. Hence the decisions rendered under the old
\nAct Ul:S”(f1rU?:S gratuitous passengers are of no avail<\/p>\n
while considering the liability of the insurance<\/p>\n
company in respect: of any accident which occii\u00a3rret:iT<\/p>\n
or would occu.r qjier ihe new Aci came i:1i'()_j{f)rce.”‘.;.:’   h 0.<\/p>\n
10. However, the said judgment-*”wv2i:s.. spe\u00ab.::AiI’ic_ei1i3f <\/p>\n
overruled by subsequent jLzdg_2;r11eIi=i_ of-.1h.e  “Cotiifi’c.__.in;vL.i’1e<\/p>\n
Case of New India Assurance ,_Co.LiVd._  As;\u00bbh.ogRani  VOrS’.;<\/p>\n
reported in 2003 AG} I as LEI1d(;f.’=.i_V’h’ _<\/p>\n
“It wasfeli. toi’1.A’.LJi”‘~A,*:\/ize the court’ in New
\nIndia Assurance Co.L-toi. ::’;;;”s;Vai;a.\u00a2:i:- .Smgf_i1. 2000 AG}<\/p>\n
1 {SC}. reqmres recon’s~idera:i:or1. :’\u00a7yg.r:\u00b0 larger Bench<\/p>\n
and if’i_Vci\u00ab:V i.S’;?.”V’.1(.)l.I.!, ‘i.!’1i_1s=. _bun.ch~ Vo;”Vdp}9eals had been<\/p>\n
jzriczced  Bench. (2001 ACJ 1847]
\n{SC}: “Fhis.’ inieirnf’nece\u00e9siiates interpretation of the
\n‘provisions in-vs;2c_zhh:o;.~{147 of ihe Motor Vehicle Act.
\n  iiteireirxqftervreferred to as ‘the Act’) as it stood
\n  amendrneni in 1994. It may be stated
\n   “l,?FO1.3f.Sl’.()fIS of Section 147 of the Aci.
\n to Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
\n 1939;’
\n”  xxzoc xxxx goooc
\nIn Mallai.01.L>a z,:5;. Orienial i’r1.surariCe C0.Lid.
\n“E999 AG} 1 {SC} iuhile approving the earlier
\ndecision Qf the court in Pushpabai Purshottam<\/p>\n
Udeshi us. Ranjii Ginn.i’.ng and Pressing Co. 1977<\/p>\n
E,\u00bb<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
ACJ 343 {SC}, the court. constriied. the pr’oiiisi’o:ns-of_:.V’
\nSection 95{l}(b) of the Motor’ Vehicles Act,
\nheld that whi’le the expression ‘any
\nexpression ‘every motor vefiiiolet baie\ufb01 in i.uicle”
\nbut by proviso {it} It r’est–riots.’trlie\ufb01geviteraltty.of
\nmain provision by confinir1g_Vil1e re=c;itirerne’nt tocases
\nwhere the vehicle is a  in passengers
\nare carried _for hi’re_or r-c;2ii>’arr:l’*or9″‘;b.y reason of or in
\npursuance of a conir-aic’t.yQ}f ‘;;:;}i;;1i\u00a2;gni;en:, therefore,
\nthe vehicle__h.ad  ‘i.2ehV.icle i’n’ passengers
\nare carrj!et:i:.\u00ab._VVVyfTheE:conI-t..ffu’rf’lier_” that the goods
\nvehicle” c’a’niAiot’;V–_Vbe  to-7  a \u00bb passenger vehicle
\neven l”_f’:Vl’Ji:’:f’f?1:.;tJ’C”llL?iIQ’~  to be used on some<\/p>\n
stray _o&?ot_isi’oii.s for”ear’ryi_r1g passengers for hire or<\/p>\n
reward. _ _ y
\n“;.:}oo_\ufb01 9′  ‘;\\{,)C}\u00a7.7( XXXX<\/p>\n
 in E\u00a7alVp’a’l’scase. 2000 AG} 1 (so) court<\/p>\n
“”:’ClLf_5Sl1I7~?\u00a7fCi that””‘the provisions Qf Section 95(1) of<\/p>\n
  tvilotforfx\/ei1.icles Act. I 939. are identical with Section<\/p>\n
   Motor Vehicles Act. .1939, as it stood<\/p>\n
 prio*r_vt_o arnendment. But a careful scrui:in.y of t.he<\/p>\n
j:IrO’iJisic)ris would make it Clear that prior to the<\/p>\n
A  amendment of 1994 it. was not necessary for the<\/p>\n
insurer to i.n.su.re against the ou.vn.er of the goods or<\/p>\n
his aiithorized representicitiue being carried in a<\/p>\n
goods vehicle. On an erroneous impression this<\/p>\n
3\/”\n<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
and as ii’ stands subsequent lo its arnenClme.hii’._lgr1g”<\/p>\n
I994 c’u’tci beou’i.ng in mind. the objecis ar’1d\u00a2._ret1;so}g’isgl 3′<\/p>\n
engrcgfied in {he amended provisions,_iii.is”=eli\ufb02leu._li’<\/p>\n
for us to crorlsirue ihai ihe’Jex,o”I’eS_sior1.;e’)lisiing
\nsial’1ii:e. On ihe ol’herf– .l’1l(1i–:I_1cl–,.l :fl.l.(lflv\u00a3:?V:(;’:lf’l\\Lj’.. demonstrates
\nthou. the lA\u20ac3’glSlCll.iAi_I’.r3V:._Li.iCi1″i.l\u20acel. ‘iog i5fihg” within the
\nsweep ion  4?’  Compulsory for
\nthe i’rjisi{;=,3_f  .i:}_Vzs’Li\u00abr:e,ei3eh Qfa goods vehicle,
\nthem oz1;ri1ei’:.;_;:,v_Q\/’l   or his aul’horized<\/p>\n
zfeprese’ri?ioi’iiie=.beihg~earried in a goods vehicle when<\/p>\n
ijhrii u.ehic’–le’r:hei :’li<\u00ab'..i'1'.:'ll'i.,'(1VI~1 accidehi and the owner of<\/p>\n
the  of hisf\u00e9;ofeser'1iaiive either dies or suffers<\/p>\n
_ 2 l bodily iriiui'_yl  I<\/p>\n
  X300; H xxxx xxxx<\/p>\n
   iheid that ihe insurer will not be liable for<\/p>\n
 pagr.'hg lc;olr1'1per'1saii'on lo the owner of the goods or<\/p>\n
h.{SLir.ill'1ori'zed represeniaime on being carried in a<\/p>\n
g.o_o~d.s vehicle when {hot uehicle meets Luiih an<\/p>\n
ll\ufb01ciccridehi and the owner of goods or his<\/p>\n
A represeniciiiue dies or 3l.i_f]efS arig bodily injury.<\/p>\n
XXXX XXXX XX.\\'.X<\/p>\n
E9<\/p>\n
28. Art ()li.?n(3i’ ofa passenger carrying L”\u20acl’l1’E7*fT:l’E?V <\/p>\n
musi pay premium for covering the i’islcs__ of 5′<\/p>\n
passengers. If a li.abi.lii’y oiher than..l:,lfle,li2~niiea<\/p>\n
liability proi.\u00bbicleCl_]or under ll’1.e;V}’ici”i’5 ‘io’..\u00bbbe,;<\/p>\n
under an insurance policy, addilio:’ial1pren1iurn~<\/p>\n
required to be paid. Ba!’-if ihellralio Qf”l’ll’l:3j’:CQllFlil3
\ndecision in New India Assilrarice Co.~L_i7Ci.e es. lfgaipal
\nSingh. 2000 AG} 01 {SC)” is_:’–i.laT}\u20aceri  “His \u00ablogical
\nconclu.si.on. aliihoi,igl7:L[o1*~sLien U16 owner
\nof a goods car-ried_V_nee(i  insurance
\npolicy, l’l’.lt3_’L_.f,._Lnl’_’_’>OLll0.l be ‘lo  been covered
\ni.inder\u00ab*ilie_  l.i.:g_iie.re]E.jre.’veoen no premium is
\n1′(2C]uir\u00e93d  l3b’.f_5l;.  0′ V V<\/p>\n
_l “7’L7..~’rl=i.a1_;–.consi(ler  mailer from anoiher
\nar:.gle.. Seelion’:sr.i2;iQl2}._l2\u00a7” the 1988 Act enables the<\/p>\n
iiisiirers to raise cl.e_._\/l.f3r’ic*es against the Claim of the<\/p>\n
 claimarii.s…ln lerms of clause [a}{i]{c) of subsection
\n(2;’*.of’l’ Sc=ciio7ill”‘l749 of ihe Aci one of ihe dcjences
\n  _i.iJl1:.ii;il:1v”‘is’2available lo the insurer is lhai the vehicle<\/p>\n
‘ –.  inqi_i_eslion has been usedfor a purpose not allowed<\/p>\n
by’ ‘ll’ie*7 permit. under wliicli the vehicle was used.<\/p>\n
I’3ii\u00e9’:li a si.ai:’ui:’ory defence available to the insurer<\/p>\n
\u00ab,_iuoi.ild be obliieralecl in view of the decision of this<\/p>\n
 c:ou.ri’ in Salpal Singifs case, 2000 ACJ 1 {SC}. ”<\/p>\n
ii, <\/p>\n
L.\/\/<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
11. Following the a.l”ox’esaici jt,:dgme1’ai,, the <\/p>\n
in the case of United India. Insurance Co.Li.d.,  Ti_’__la.k<\/p>\n
Singh & Ors. reported. in AIR 2006 so 1576 rhiejdi\u00e9isi u.nde;\u00a7\u00a5: ~ V. <\/p>\n
“19. The argiuneni that the r;sk..j9er\u00a3;ai’nif:ng
\nthird party would extend .to a joerson ()lh.Ver*  {lie V
\nparties to (he insurance coniaracr iL:cts.rai.s_”ed
\nIndia Assurance A_Compaxn--y  Sa._ipa.l Smgh  Ors.
\n(2000) 1 sec  ehegg lafiijevri’contrasting the
\nlanguage of Seciion  ih–‘e,ll  with the
\nproL:L9i.og1:;tQ}7_  lh’e~  988 Act this<\/p>\n
couri :\n<\/p>\n
_ — ‘Al’VIl’Vl”17e ~~i’es.u_li___(;hai under the new Act: an
\ni.n:’?ilrai1ce third party risk is not<\/p>\n
_ requi’r’ecl”  gra(:uil”ous passengers in a
\n oehicle. n'(3..;nai_er that the vehicle is of any type or
\n‘flerice [he decisions rendered. under the old<\/p>\n
 –  gratuitous passengers are of no avail
\nl l.L..’ll’z1’lV’c-.?’j_ cor’1side:’ir1g lhe liability of the insurance
\nCoriipariy in respect ofany accident which occurred<\/p>\n
or iuoiild. occur after the new ACT.” came iniioforce.’<\/p>\n
20. The ivieu: expressed. in Saipal Si.ngh’s
\ncase {supra} however, has been specifically<\/p>\n
overruled in {he S1lbS\u20acq’li\u20acT1l._jl.IdQ’TTl\u20acTT.{. of a Bench of<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
three judges in New India Assurance Company.  <\/p>\n
Asha Rani and others (2003) 2 SCC 223_.j””‘I\ufb02f.f?ih\u00a2l’: ;. l <\/p>\n
case Qf’ discussion arose in COI1n\u20acCl’iQnv::LUlliE. 9<\/p>\n
carrging passengers in a gooclsrwvehicle.  co’ur_ij_ <\/p>\n
after referring to the terms ‘of the  it<\/p>\n
1988 Act. as contrasteal with~–g.Slectiong,Q:3loft’ the
\n1939 Act held that tl1eju_dgV:j1entl.z:1. .Sa.tp_”a
\ncase {supra} had been incorrecilg deeided_’anrl that
\nthe insurer will    Compensation.\n<\/p>\n
In the concurring    J.. after
\ncontrastrir;.gDt,l1e iglrlglgage ‘in  “1 939 Act with
\nthat of _9_88_Lii’ haisilaeenllllobserved {vide
\n he ‘ V’ <\/p>\n
* 4′ *25;:  of 1988 Act. inter alia,<\/p>\n
prescribesl”coi’npul.s’e.rg coverage against the death<\/p>\n
.–  orllboclilg”  to any passenger of ‘public<\/p>\n
 service vehicle’. Proviso appended. thereto<\/p>\n
categorically states that compulsory coverage in<\/p>\n
. respectvl.l’gQ,l”‘drivers and conductors of public service<\/p>\n
vehicljeland employees carried in a goods vehicle<\/p>\n
l ..u}oitld be limited to the liability under the<\/p>\n
Workmen’s Compensation Act. It does not speak of<\/p>\n
” any passenger in a ‘goods carriage’.<\/p>\n
27′. Furthermore, sulrclause [i] of Clause (19)<\/p>\n
of si.tb~sect’ion (1) Qi” Section 147 speaks of liability<\/p>\n
\u00a7;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 -~-Cf:o.Li.cl. vs. Surlhalcaran. K.’\/. 8:. Ors. reported in 2008 ACJ 2045,<\/p>\n
u<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
which n”:.ay be incurred’ by the owner of a
\nrespect ofoleat.’l’I of or bodily lf’_ljl.lT’J to arIy__f;’Jfersoil\u00b0l 3′
\ndamage to an 3; property of a third party. by<\/p>\n
or arising out of the use  bi\ufb01ehicle in
\nplace. whereas sub–clause lliij
\nliability which may bev’ii’lctir’i’ecl’-bl} the
\nvehicle against the deaI’li’li’Qflor_boclily iijl;’1Vir’l; to any
\npassenger of a pttlolic se’ri,iic:e lreriicle cause\/Vlby or
\narising out of the  in a public<\/p>\n
place’    _ ‘-\n<\/p>\n
‘2.I\u00a7–., ,  ‘:1J!’.(3:.l2-l.{V.  observations
\nn1ad.le__ ii1_uf_Asli:’1  {supra} were in
\n:coiir1erc.li’o_r1 :l’c1ai’i’3:;iri’cjVljjassengers in a goods
\nv:;?el1’l.cle;  “apply with equal _force to
\ngraluilmls’paiaseiigersx in any other vehicle also.
\n.,TllllS’.”” il)e’V..ri11is’i. tl\ufb01phold the contention of the
\n (f.pV.pC.’,’_llClI’ll.x\u00a5’~i!3\u00ab\u00a7\u00a3tlI’ClI1C\u20ac company that it owed no
\n towards the ir1_ifi.lr’ies stg\ufb02ered by the
\nit olec–:e:Vci3:fec.l-:’Raji.n.cler Singh who was a pillion rider.
\n ir1.surance policy was a statutory policy. and
\n..l’l(3.I1(?Ve ii dia’ not cover the risk of death of or bodily
\nl.l:ljlll’y to _CjI'(1lI.l.ll'()I.lS passengers.”<\/p>\n
‘ ‘\u00a32. The Apex Court in the erase of Oriental Insurance<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
dealing with the obligai..ion oi’ the insurer to indemnify–.:\u00a3in_e”claim<\/p>\n
on account of the death of the pillion rider oniiiie scvovoierraifteir<\/p>\n
referring to the various judgn1eni’.s_\u00bboi’._i,he herd  <\/p>\n
under in para 19:\n<\/p>\n
“19. The law ii=iii_efi~._emerges
\ndecisions. is: {i} the liabliliigw  insjarance
\ncompany in a caseof  is not levj\u00e9ioerided to
\na pillion rider  ihe” unless the
\nrequisite C1.l71OI..\u00a3T1l’i”‘Qf:~]\u00a7I’\u20aclTii.i:I\u00bbI}1’li$’_ ii:-aid”._f%)r covering
\nhis \/ her’  legal’ .ob’ligar-rion arising under
\nSecitfori ” :ili-e.>;[‘:–..A”c~i:.__ be extended to an
\nvir1j’u:’;;_\ufb02oj;f deicijlh  (Jii,ifi’\u20ac’i” vehicle or the pillion
\n:if’l’d(-?I’,”‘ a.ricl:.(‘E-ii)”\ufb01’h:e*;oiiiiToi: “rider on a two wheel was
\nn.o:__io beir.ea’i’ed  party when the accident<\/p>\n
_ has i[alcen.pl-.:ice=_owing to rash and negligent: riding
\n  {he sco’o:.e_rj___aizd not on the pari. of ihe driver of<\/p>\n
o1her._ Vuehicle. ”\n<\/p>\n
 Apex Court in the ease of Dr.T.V.Jose vs.<\/p>\n
chacm__”P ix\/i”‘& Ors. reported in 2001 ACJ 2059 explaining the<\/p>\n
 nleanirlgs of the word ‘third party’ in the context whether it<\/p>\n
“Ai_r1′(:l’Lides a gmiiiiious passenger in a car held as under:<\/p>\n
The seciion does noi, however. require a<\/p>\n
policy io (rover the risk io passengers who are not K<\/p>\n
iii,\u00bb<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
carried for hire or I’C’1i.lCtI’Cl. The statittory li1SLi’F>(;lI1(‘f;E”._.V’<\/p>\n
does not cover iryury sttffered by occupariis  <\/p>\n
vehicle who are not carried for hire ()if.ireiLtiara’–.and
\nthe insurer cannot’ be held liabhlel i.tha’er<.i:'he
\nthat does not prevent an ir'tsiei.rEir_];rorit 3?
\ncontract of insurance coiieiiihg at i-'isle  i.hva.h_the
\nmiriiniimi requirement of Sl,C'lfltl.\u20ac3.  the
\nrisk to grati.iit'ous p.assehg'er'sVe_:cotlleialsolbecoirered.<\/p>\n
In such cases. itihere   -not merely a
\nsr'aiu.t'ory policy, the..:'i'_errn's.    have to be
\ncorlstcierea' \u00abtofdeie_rrii1irie~': the try the i as arer.<\/p>\n
T'l'%.’O”r),\u00abi!iiy to occupanis of the car. As
\n   oui herienabove, the law on this
\n. sAid:3iecl\u00ab_ is  a third party policy does not cover
\n  _  lo graiuiioiis passengers who are not
\n‘  hire or reward. The respondeni No.8
\ncompcir1_i; will. “therefore. not”. be liable to reimburse
\n”  appellaniz. ”\n<\/p>\n
 From the scheme of Chapter XI. the statuiiory<\/p>\n
insurance which is mantle ma1’1claio1’y is only to protect the<\/p>\n
\\}\/,i<\/p>\n
l lai’ as they are (..’OI1C\u20ac’l’1’1\u20acCl is limited to the liability under the<\/p>\n
l\/<\/p>\n
interest. oi” third parties. Section 1463 deals with tl*s:el”net:.es.sity<\/p>\n
for insurance against third party risks. Section.l47.deealsi..{yitl\ufb01. <\/p>\n
the requirements of policies and livi1I1’l.Es~~\u00a3)f ‘Slt1bl.–felaopse’ j<\/p>\n
[i] of Clause (b) of subwseetion (ill’.Vol’:’..A.Seletioii<\/p>\n
liability which may be ii1{)LIll”i’-\\’;T'(l}””..l.)).F the .owner._oi’..:a””veliicle in<\/p>\n
respect of death of or bodily may   damage to
\nany property of a  out of the
\nuse of the V\u20acl’1l'(“,lVC .1’11 q.”plLi’bli\u00a5e  sub–clause (ii)
\nthereof deals. lbleWin.c1irred by the owner
\nof a   or bodily injury to any
\n vehicle caused by or arising out of<\/p>\n
the use  veh.iol”edirLlarpijblie place. Section 2{35} of the Act<\/p>\n
defines wliat” 21\u00bb pL1blic.”.sei*\\rice vehicle means. i.e.._ any motor<\/p>\n
3_._use_d oi'”‘adopied to be used for the carriage of<\/p>\n
‘ pas’sengers for hire or reward and includes a maxi cab. a motor<\/p>\n
“‘eab’.__ Coiitract:uearriage and stage carriage. Proviso appended<\/p>\n
thereto ea’t@V,g\u00a7oric:ally statics that Compulsory coverage in respect<\/p>\n
 drivers and CO1’1dll(‘lOI’S of public sewice vehicle. and<\/p>\n
“fen1p’l’c_~.yees carried in a goods VCl’1l(..’lL”. however the liability in so<\/p>\n
\/”\n<\/p>\n
27<\/span><\/p>\n
Workmens Cornpensation Act. It does not spe.ak.””of any<\/p>\n
J.\n<\/p>\n
passenger in a ‘goods carriage’. Therefore. _i_:,’.W’is–\u00ab .f_’c-1.e_ar..V the<\/p>\n
statutory insurance is confined to the death~e:: injury to<\/p>\n
any passenger of a public serviceZzyehjcle}cansed’=byuor arising”<\/p>\n
out of the use of the Vehicle in a public r\ufb02ace.    j _ y\n<\/p>\n
15. Therefore, the passerrger’ of  vehic1e”*:wh’ich is not<\/p>\n
meant for public serviceis 1’1Q.*.”C(JV@’\u20acdH1,11’1d\u20acI’ “[\u00a7i1iS~S\u20acCtiOI}. The
\nsaid passenger in the case_’of’aftwo whee1er.is the pinion rider
\nand in the vc.asev.._ot’ \u00a7_’t.hree wheeler ‘and four wheeler the<\/p>\n
occupants  who are not carried in the said
\nvehicle for hireV”‘ora”reward; Therefore, the insurance policy<\/p>\n
111 resp”ec_t_’fo’i’ anvehicle. in which they are travelling as<\/p>\n
V’ su_ch passengers are not treated as third parties and such an<\/p>\n
 3ns’;trance_ydoV.f’no”t cover the risk of such persons. The reason is<\/p>\n
Seetionr’  does not require a policy to cover the risk to<\/p>\n
\u00b0 passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. The<\/p>\n
stattztory insurance does not cover injuries suffered by<\/p>\n
_ occupants of the vehlcie who are not carried for hire or reward<\/p>\n
and the insurer cannot be held liable under the Act. The<\/p>\n
oeeupaiii,s\/ passengers \/ iimiates of a private vehieiejlall
\nWithin the defiliition of the word third
\nlegal obligation arising under Seetio’1*1 E.\u00bb-fly?  i.
\nextended to an injury or death  *ow\ufb01er_:”or_
\npassengers in such private  or a’  the case
\nof a two wheeler. Gi’at.uitous passengeijs who are ndt carried for
\nhire or reward in a  service Vehicle,<\/p>\n
cannot be eoiistru ed as’t’hi1″d:pa1=ii’e.s.<\/p>\n
16. {if th\u00a7f:’~r’risk”-of7aur1 o4ee._u”‘ai’it:*”‘of a car, inmate of a<\/p>\n
Vehicle 01’ _ lf)\u00e9i’sse1rigcti*–_iri_V a _ private Car. is to be Covered.
\nadditional }3reIx1iti’rri’~has__tote paid. if no additional prerniurri
\nis paid, their risk is r-toil ‘c.ovei’ed. The statutory liability under<\/p>\n
Seet;ioi1s’ 146  the Act has to be read with the terms<\/p>\n
 ofthe *ii1stii<a.nL\u00e9e policy issued under Section 146 of the Act.<\/p>\n
_ Bu_tIl't.h'atddoes "-}_1()t prevent an insurer from entering into a<\/p>\n
'(:C)ritraCt.' ovfyj'i11'su1"z1n(?cr e()Verii"1g a risk wider than the Iriinimum<\/p>\n
1*eqkuire*rnei1t':V of the stattite. whereby the risk to gratuitous<\/p>\n
 passerigers Could also be eovered. A third party policy does not<\/p>\n
 '_ eov\u00e9i' hability to \u00a7_{ra1L1i'tous passengers who are not carried for<\/p>\n
ia,,\/ a<\/p>\n
I'~\\\u00ab<\/p>\n
iiiei'ely b\u20ac('.E':1LlS(:', d1'1 ziddii:ioi'ia} pi'em.ii1m  collected imder iihe<\/p>\n
iii \/'<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
hire or reward. If a liabilii.y other than the limiiedi:”–1_ia*bility<\/p>\n
provided for under the Act is to be (‘3i1l’ia1.”i{‘!\u20acd_’Vii-fldeih’-sari<\/p>\n
insurance policy. additional pi’ei1ii_L.i.m__is r_eqLiii’ed\u00bb to  p2iid.g l<\/p>\n
The liability is i’esi.rieied 1.0 iihe Z”-vliab’_il1t.y a17is’i*:i_:g <\/p>\n
statutory reqL1irei1ienis i.ii1de’;’l_Seg:i’ioh”E-4: only\ufb02  ‘<\/p>\n
17. In View of the aui.h’o.i.f_ii1at_ive 1o’i*oii’o’i,ineei1ieIii, of the
\napex Court holding i’liai:”=:–:1ii (_3AeCu:;_)”a–r1i.\u00ab,\/ylhmate \/passenger in a
\nprivate Car. is 1101 a i.hird’l’  recorded by the<\/p>\n
tribunal l1l’1al;”llit?KllI’1S1,i:1f21l”\u00a3(E(3″xpdligfyd-lS.SL1\u00a7d covers the risk of<\/p>\n
such }V”;e1’s._onsV a7hdu.__tl’ie irisuranee company is liable to
\npay corzipei’1.sai:ioi’1l:{i*noLii1’E”i’s illegal and Contrary to the law<\/p>\n
declared  apex C”OL1l:l.. In \ufb01gici. in the policy. no additional<\/p>\n
 pre’i’r:i:iu:i1_5i  i’eeeive,.d….by the insurance Company io cover the
\nOl’,Sii.(‘?l1_'[3’&?i’S(_)l’1S. Ii. is clear frorri the temlirzology used in<\/p>\n
the”.__pol’i.e.y’awliiyeh. fact is not in dis_pui.e. In one of the Cases.<\/p>\n
addi__i.ior_1_.al _i’_)4:’:”(:;’l”I1lLl1I1 is collected to lciaciiiig the risk of third<\/p>\n
V._pari.y”oril1y. as  clear from the policy ihat. loading was not<\/p>\n
fmeaiii to cover risk oi’ l1’i1’I’1af’.C\u20ac~3 of a private Car and therefore.<\/p>\n
i \/<\/p>\n
Bl<\/p>\n
of compensation at the instance oi’ the claimant. IrI:en:”C’e_.”we do<\/p>\n
not see any merit in the said appeal also.<\/p>\n
19. lt was submitted l..hE11._.*if1\u00bb.,l\\\/IFA’. <\/p>\n
insurance company had already
\nso. insurar1ee company is to  the
\nowner of the vehicle to  It was also
\nsubmitted that 50% of   in fixed deposit. The
\nsaid amount. shall not.-“beiigiyenttodluvtheiixelaimants, they are<\/p>\n
entitled to zfeoeive’\u00a7)erio’d.ioal inizmfest. “The insurance company<\/p>\n
is entitled to agaiiist the owner of the vehicle and to
\nrecovefthe. ainiotinis.wh.io’ii,they have paid to the Claimants.<\/p>\n
Only in eyem”oit.he””inst1i’ai’1ee company not being able to<\/p>\n
 .,_AI’E’Gt)l?\u20acIjs..i’;ht3.l.whOle?’\u20acti’1’1OVL1I1’\u00a3. from the owner of the vehicle, they<\/p>\n
 ‘c:an”the’n_\u00ab’p1″0c:eCd against’. the claimant and recover the money<\/p>\n
f1″oin’ the ai;o_reasa1id deposit. Till they exhaust all their remedies<\/p>\n
 to reooveif the money from the owner of the vehicle, they shall<\/p>\n
not “proceed against the deposit in the name of the Claimants.<\/p>\n
20. For the atoresaid reasons, we  the following:<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
32<\/span><\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
(1) MFA Nu.1.1917\/2007 is disI1’1issed.   .<\/p>\n
(ii) AH other appeals g,-we ‘a1E.QW_ed  <\/p>\n
foisted on the
\naside. The  o\ufb01.”Lh_e ‘0\\\u00a7r\ufb01e13’:..,\u00a7:f”ti”;e vehicle
\nS[E1I]dS._,. .. V ‘ . h V<\/p>\n
{iii} The e11f1dL1r1l.”-  deposited by the<\/p>\n
iiiesvurancf\u00e9'”c::$ie:1pa.1iy_ at’.  time of p1*efer1″i;n.g<\/p>\n
 “””    tiiesxsr. appeals ‘i’s’e1*de1’ed to be refunded to the
\nii’;5%ur\u00e9mvced._et;:11;5a11y as they have succeeded in
\nM .tihe.se7.i:1ppe:1Is.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/—4
\nIUDGE
\nsd\/=~
\nEUDGE<\/p>\n
  .,_Cm\/\u00ab<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Branch Manager vs Mahadev Pandurang Patil on 4 October, 2010 Author: N.Kumar And Adi IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA CIRCUI1′. ]3E:NCH AT GULBARGA W -. DATED THIS ‘1m\u00ab’: 04″: DAY OF 0c’1’013}.2;:.’:F\u00a7’. — ” PREsEN\u00a7 THE HON’BLE THE HON’BLE’ BEVADI V _:v:.1:r.A.:\u00a7J0L”:0993′ V_200?_”{MV3 , …. “~..v%”I\\A.i’\u00e9?3Av.N0’s;:i’0990 , 10991, 10992, ‘ […]<\/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-26621","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Branch Manager vs Mahadev Pandurang Patil on 4 October, 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-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Branch Manager vs Mahadev Pandurang Patil on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-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=\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-08T13:40:29+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=\"29 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-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Branch Manager vs Mahadev Pandurang Patil on 4 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-08T13:40:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5609,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010\",\"name\":\"The Branch Manager vs Mahadev Pandurang Patil on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-08T13:40:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Branch Manager vs Mahadev Pandurang Patil on 4 October, 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 Branch Manager vs Mahadev Pandurang Patil on 4 October, 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-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Branch Manager vs Mahadev Pandurang Patil on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-08T13:40:29+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Branch Manager vs Mahadev Pandurang Patil on 4 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-08T13:40:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010"},"wordCount":5609,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010","name":"The Branch Manager vs Mahadev Pandurang Patil on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-08T13:40:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-branch-manager-vs-mahadev-pandurang-patil-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Branch Manager vs Mahadev Pandurang Patil on 4 October, 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\/26621","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=26621"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26621\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26621"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26621"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26621"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}