{"id":272155,"date":"2008-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-01-07T07:01:20","modified_gmt":"2018-01-07T01:31:20","slug":"mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mantoo Sarkar vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 16 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mantoo Sarkar vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 16 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Cyriac Joseph<\/div>\n
                                                                       REPORTABLE\n\n                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                   CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION\n\n                   CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7318 OF 2007\n     (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18201 of 2007}\n\n\n\nMantoo Sarkar                                            ..... Appellant\n\n\n            Versus\n\n\nOriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others                         .....\nRespondents\n\n\n\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
S.B. SINHA, J.\n<\/p>\n
\n
1.    Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\n
2.    Interpretation and\/or application of Section 166 (2) of the Motor<\/p>\n
Vehicles Act<\/a>, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of<\/p>\n
brevity) in regard to territorial jurisdiction of a Tribunal is the question<\/p>\n
involved herein.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                                           1<\/span>
\n      The said question arises in the following factual matrix.<\/p>\n
3.    Appellant had been travelling as a passenger in a bus, bearing<\/p>\n
registration No.MP-04-7915, belonging to Madhya Pradesh Road Transport<\/p>\n
Corporation. It met with an accident in the town of Faridpur in the District<\/p>\n
of Uttar Pradesh having collided with truck bearing No.HR-38-E-5554.<\/p>\n
Appellant suffered grievous injuries.     A First Information Report was<\/p>\n
lodged against the driver of the said truck under Sections 279<\/a>, 338<\/a> and 427<\/a><\/p>\n
of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      Indisputably the said truck belonged to respondent No.2 and was<\/p>\n
registered at Faridabad. It was insured with respondent No.1-company.<\/p>\n
Appellant was working as a skilled migrant seasonal agricultural labourer.<\/p>\n
He had been earning his livelihood at the relevant time by performing his<\/p>\n
job as a labourer in the work of extracting sand gravel from a river named<\/p>\n
`Hola River’ near Beri Pada, Lalkuan, Distt. Nainital, Uttaranchal. He is<\/p>\n
said to have been living for a long time at Pilibhit in the State of Uttar<\/p>\n
Pradesh. Indisputably, after he remained in the district Hospital at Bareilly<\/p>\n
as an indoor patient upto 28th July, 2003, he was shifted to Prabhakar<\/p>\n
Hospital in Pilibhit. He underwent several operations.<\/p>\n
                                                                         2<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
4.    Appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims<\/p>\n
Tribunal, Nainital (for short `the Tribunal’) claiming a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.23,90,000\/- (Rupees twenty three lakh ninety thousand only) alongwith<\/p>\n
interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of<\/p>\n
actual payment.\n<\/p>\n
\n
5.    Respondent No.1 has a branch office at Nainital.<\/p>\n
      The conductor of the bus and the driver of the truck examined<\/p>\n
themselves before the Tribunal as witnesses.        No oral evidence was,<\/p>\n
however, adduced on behalf of the first respondent. One of the questions<\/p>\n
which, only the first respondent raised and no other, was lack of territorial<\/p>\n
jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      The learned Tribunal inter alia on the premise that the jurisdiction<\/p>\n
conferred on it, having regard to sub-section (2) of Section 166<\/a> of the Act is<\/p>\n
wide and the insurance company having a branch office at Nainital, it had<\/p>\n
territorial jurisdiction to determine the claim petition. It made an Award of<\/p>\n
                                                                          3<\/span>
\nRs.2,40,000\/ (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only) in favour of the<\/p>\n
claimant.\n<\/p>\n
\n
6.    The High Court, however, on an appeal preferred thereagaisnt by the<\/p>\n
first respondent, opined –\n<\/p>\n
\n
             “It is a well settled position of law that the claim
\n             petition can only be entertained and filed before a
\n             court having the territorial jurisdiction to hear the
\n             matter. The claimant cannot take the matter to
\n             different State on the pretext that his case would
\n             be disposed of expeditiously in that State or
\n             District without having the territorial jurisdiction.
\n             The learned counsel for the claimants submitted
\n             that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that
\n             the Tribunal, Nainital had got no territorial
\n             jurisdiction to dispose of the matter, the claimants
\n             may be given liberty to file a fresh claim petition
\n             before the competent Tribunal.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
      On the basis of the said finding it was held that Motor Accident<\/p>\n
Claims Tribunal, Nainital had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said<\/p>\n
claim petition.\n<\/p>\n
\n
7.    Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
appellant would contend that the High Court committed a serious error in<\/p>\n
passing the impugned judgment in so far as it failed to take into<\/p>\n
                                                                           4<\/span>
\nconsideration the evidence of the appellant (PW-1) wherein he clearly stated<\/p>\n
that he had been working at Beri Pada, Lal Kuan in the District of Nainital,<\/p>\n
although he had not given his Lalkuan’s address in his claim petition having<\/p>\n
been doing his work as a labourer. The evidence of the said witness having<\/p>\n
been accepted by the learned Tribunal, the High Court should not have<\/p>\n
interfered therewith.\n<\/p>\n
\n
8.     Mr. Ashish Wad, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other<\/p>\n
hand, would contend that the accident having taken place at Bareilly, the<\/p>\n
bus belonging to Gwalior depot of the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport<\/p>\n
Corporation, the office of the owner of the truck being at Gurgaon, office of<\/p>\n
the insurance company being at Delhi, the Tribunal at Nainital did not have<\/p>\n
any territorial jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\n
9.     Section 166(2)<\/a> of the Act reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\n
              “166 – Application for compensation<\/p>\n
              (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall
\n              be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the
\n              Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area
\n              in which the accident occurred or to the Claims
\n              Tribunal within the local limits of whose
\n              jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on
\n              business or within the local limits of whose
\n              jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in<\/p>\n
                                                                         5<\/span>
\n             such form and contain such particulars as may be
\n             prescribed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Provided that where no claim for compensation
\n             under section 140<\/a> is made in such application, the
\n             application shall contain a separate statement to
\n             that effect immediately before the signature of the
\n             applicant.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.   The said Act is a special statute. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal<\/p>\n
having regard to the terminologies used therein must be held to be wider<\/p>\n
than the civil court.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      A claimant has a wide option.          Residence of the claimant also<\/p>\n
determines jurisdiction of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\n
11.   What would be a residence of a person would, however, depend upon<\/p>\n
the fact situation obtaining in each case.\n<\/p>\n
\n
12.   Appellant had been a resident of Pilibhit. It is in the State of Uttar<\/p>\n
Pradesh. He being a migrant labourer accepts job wherever he gets and<\/p>\n
resides there. He, admittedly, had been working in Nanital district and<\/p>\n
residing there during the period of accident. The fact that he was thus a<\/p>\n
                                                                        6<\/span>
\nresident of Nainital in the State of Uttaranchal is neither denied nor<\/p>\n
disputed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
13.      The High Court unfortunately in its judgment did not assign sufficient<\/p>\n
or cogent reason as to why the Tribunal committed any illegality in holding<\/p>\n
that he had the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.<\/p>\n
14.      No doubt the Tribunal must exercise jurisdiction having regard to the<\/p>\n
ingredients laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 166<\/a> of the Act. We<\/p>\n
are not unmindful of the fact that in terms of Section 169<\/a> of the Act, the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, subject to any rules, may follow a summary procedure and the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Code<\/a> of Civil Procedure under the Act has a limited<\/p>\n
application but in terms of the rules `save and except’ any specific provision<\/p>\n
made in that behalf, the provisions of the Code<\/a> of Civil Procedure would<\/p>\n
apply.     Even otherwise the principles laid down in the Code<\/a> of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure may be held to be applicable in a case of this nature.<\/p>\n
15.      We say so because ordinarily an appellate court shall not, having<\/p>\n
regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the<\/p>\n
Code of Civil Procedure, entertain an appeal on the ground of lack of<\/p>\n
                                                                           7<\/span>
\nterritorial jurisdiction on the part of the court below unless he has been<\/p>\n
prejudiced thereby.    Other respondents did not raise any question of<\/p>\n
jurisdiction. Although one witness each had been examined on behalf of the<\/p>\n
truck owner and owner of the bus, neither a question of lack of territorial<\/p>\n
jurisdiction was raised nor the question of any prejudice had been argued.<\/p>\n
It is only the first respondent who raised the question of territorial<\/p>\n
jurisdiction. However, no prejudice was caused to the appellant by the<\/p>\n
claim petition being tried by the MACT at Nainital.<\/p>\n
16.   The liability of the insurance company arises for the purpose of<\/p>\n
reimbursement of the amount of compensation found to be payable by the<\/p>\n
owner of the vehicle insured. It is only in exceptional cases and as provided<\/p>\n
for under Section 170<\/a> of the Act, the insurance company can defend a claim<\/p>\n
petition. Only on limited grounds it may be permitted to question the<\/p>\n
quantum of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\n
17.   The Tribunal is a court subordinate to the High Court. An appeal<\/p>\n
against the Tribunal lies before the High Court. The High Court, while<\/p>\n
exercising its appellate power, would follow the provisions contained in the<\/p>\n
Code<\/a> of Civil Procedure or akin thereto. In view of sub-section (1) of<\/p>\n
                                                                         8<\/span>
\nSection 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was, therefore, obligatory on<\/p>\n
the part of the appellate court to pose unto itself the right question, viz.,<\/p>\n
whether the first respondent has been able to show sufferance of any<\/p>\n
prejudice. If it has not suffered any prejudice or otherwise no failure of<\/p>\n
justice had occurred, the High Court should not have entertained the appeal<\/p>\n
on that ground alone.\n<\/p>\n
\n
18.   We, however, while taking that factor into consideration must place<\/p>\n
on record that we are not oblivious of the fact that a decision rendered<\/p>\n
without jurisdiction would be coram non juris. Objection in regard to<\/p>\n
jurisdiction may be taken at any stage. ( See Chief Engineer, Hydel Project<\/p>\n
v. Ravinder Nath<\/a> , [ (2008) 2 SCC 350 ] ) wherein inter alia the decision of<\/p>\n
this Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan<\/a>, [AIR 1954 SC 340] was<\/p>\n
followed, stating:\n<\/p>\n
\n
             “26. The Court also relied upon the decision in
\n             Kiran Singh v. Chaman Pawan<\/a> [AIR 1954 SC 340]
\n             and quoted (in Harshad Chiman Lal case {[(2005)
\n             7 SCC 791], SCC pp. 804-805, para 33}
\n             therefrom: {Kiran Singh case (supra), AIR p.342,
\n             para6<\/p>\n
                     `6. …It is a fundamental principle
\n                     well established that a decree passed
\n                     by a court without jurisdiction is a
\n                     nullity, and that its invalidity could be
\n                     set up whenever and wherever it is
\n                     sought to be enforced or relied upon,<\/p>\n
                                                                         9<\/span>
\n                   even at the stage of execution and
\n                   even in collateral proceedings. A
\n                   defect of jurisdiction, …strikes at the
\n                   very authority of the court to pass any
\n                   decree, and such a defect cannot be
\n                   cured even by consent of parties.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Though in the aforementioned decision these
\n             observations were made since the defendants
\n             before raising the objection to the territorial
\n             jurisdiction had admitted that the court had the
\n             jurisdiction, the force of this decision cannot be
\n             ignored and it has to be held that such a decree
\n             would continue to be a nullity.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
19.   A distinction, however, must be made between a jurisdiction with<\/p>\n
regard to subject matter of the suit and that of territorial and pecuniary<\/p>\n
jurisdiction. Whereas in the case falling within the former category the<\/p>\n
judgment would be a nullity, in the latter it would not be. It is not a case<\/p>\n
where the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in relation to the subject matter of<\/p>\n
claim. As a matter of fact the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the<\/p>\n
suit. If the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain a claim petition under<\/p>\n
the Motor Vehicles Act<\/a>, in our opinion, the Court should not have, in<\/p>\n
absence of any finding of sufferance of any prejudice on the part of the first<\/p>\n
respondent, entertained the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                                           10<\/span>
\n      In Bikash Bhushan Ghosh v. Novartis India Ltd<\/a>., [ (2007) 5 SCC<\/p>\n
591], this Court has held :\n<\/p>\n
\n
             “17. There is another aspect of the matter which
\n             cannot be lost sight of. If the provisions contained
\n             in the Code<\/a> of Civil Procedure are given effect to,
\n             even if the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal
\n             had no jurisdiction, in view of the provisions
\n             contained in Section 21 of the Code of Civil
\n             Procedure, unless the respondent suffered any
\n             prejudice, they could not have questioned the
\n             jurisdiction of the court. In Kiran Singh v. Chaman
\n             Paswan<\/a> this Court held: (AIR p.         342, paras
\n             6-7)<\/p>\n
                   `6. … If the question now under
\n                   consideration fell to be determined only on
\n                   the application of general principles
\n                   governing the matter, there can be no doubt
\n                   that the District Court of Monghyr was
\n                   `coram non judice’ and that its judgment
\n                   and decree would be nullities. The question
\n                   is what is the effect of Section 11<\/a> of the
\n                   Suits Valuation Act on this position.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
                   7. Section 11<\/a> enacts that notwithstanding
\n                   anything in Section 578 of the Code of Civil
\n                   Procedure an objection that a court which
\n                   had no jurisdiction over a suit or appeal had
\n                   exercised it by reason of overvaluation or
\n                   undervaluation, should not be entertained by
\n                   an appellate court, except as provided in the
\n                   section. Then follow provisions as to when
\n                   the objections could be entertained, and how
\n                   they are to be dealt with. The drafting of the
\n                   section has come in–and deservedly–for
\n                   considerable criticism; but amidst much that
\n                   is obscure and confused, there is one<\/p>\n
                                                                    11<\/span>
\nprinciple which stands out clear and
\nconspicuous. It is that a decree passed by a
\ncourt, which would have had no jurisdiction
\nto hear a suit or appeal but for overvaluation
\nor undervaluation, is not to be treated as,
\nwhat it would be but for the section, null
\nand void, and that an objection to
\njurisdiction based on overvaluation or
\nundervaluation, should be dealt with under
\nthat section and not otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
       The reference to Section 578<\/a>, now
\nSection 99 CPC, in the opening words of the
\nsection is significant. That section, while
\nproviding that no decree shall be reversed or
\nvaried in appeal on account of the defects
\nmentioned therein when they do not affect
\nthe merits of the case, excepts from its
\noperation defects of jurisdiction. Section 99<\/a>
\ntherefore gives no protection to decrees
\npassed on merits, when the courts which
\npassed them lacked jurisdiction as a result
\nof overvaluation or undervaluation. It is
\nwith a view to avoid this result that Section
\n11<\/a> was enacted. It provides that objections
\nto the jurisdiction of a court based on
\novervaluation or undervaluation shall not be
\nentertained by an appellate court except in
\nthe manner and to the extent mentioned in
\nthe section. It is a self-contained provision
\ncomplete in itself, and no objection to
\njurisdiction based on overvaluation or
\nundervaluation can be raised otherwise than
\nin accordance with it.\n<\/p>\n
       With reference to objections relating
\nto territorial jurisdiction, Section 21 of the
\nCivil Procedure Code enacts that no
\nobjection to the place of suing should be<\/p>\n
                                                 12<\/span>
\n                   allowed by an appellate or revisional court,
\n                   unless there was a consequent failure of
\n                   justice. It is the same principle that has been
\n                   adopted in Section 11<\/a> of the Suits Valuation
\n                   Act with reference to pecuniary jurisdiction.
\n                   The policy underlying Sections 21 and 99
\n                   CPC and Section 11<\/a> of the Suits Valuation
\n                   Act is the same, namely, that when a case
\n                   had been tried by a court on the merits and
\n                   judgment rendered, it should not be liable to
\n                   be reversed purely on technical grounds,
\n                   unless it had resulted in failure of justice,
\n                   and the policy of the legislature has been to
\n                   treat objections to jurisdiction both
\n                   territorial and pecuniary as technical and not
\n                   open to consideration by an appellate court,
\n                   unless there has been a prejudice on the
\n                   merits. The contention of the appellants,
\n                   therefore, that the decree and judgment of
\n                   the District Court, Monghyr, should be
\n                   treated as a nullity cannot be sustained
\n                   under Section 11<\/a> of the Suits Valuation
\n                   Act.’ ”\n<\/p>\n
\n      Furthermore in determining as to whether a part of cause of action has<\/p>\n
arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court vis-`-vis an appellate<\/p>\n
court a large number of factors may have to be taken in consideration. [See<\/p>\n
Ambica Industries v. CCE<\/a>, (2007) 6 SCC 769].\n<\/p>\n
\n
      We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the appellant herein was a<\/p>\n
labourer. The justness or otherwise of the amount of compensation has not<\/p>\n
been disputed before us. If the High Court judgment is to be complied with,<\/p>\n
                                                                          13<\/span>
\nappellant would again have to initiate another proceeding either at Bareilly<\/p>\n
or Gurgaon or at Delhi or at Jabalpur. The same evidence would have to be<\/p>\n
rendered once again.    The question of fact which was required to be<\/p>\n
determined in the proceeding before the Tribunal, namely whether the driver<\/p>\n
of the truck or the driver of the bus had been driving their respective<\/p>\n
vehicles rashly and negligently would have to be determined afresh. The<\/p>\n
factual finding recorded in this case is that the driver of the truck was<\/p>\n
driving the truck rashly and negligently. In our opinion, in a case of this<\/p>\n
nature, we may even exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article<\/p>\n
142<\/a> of the Constitution of India. In New India Insurance Company v.<\/p>\n
Darshana Devi and others<\/a>, [(2008) 7 SCC 416], this Court held:<\/p>\n
            “20. Having said so, we must take notice of the
\n            fact that the deceased Baldev Singh was labourer.
\n            The Tribunal has found that besides being a
\n            labourer, he also used to deal in Safeda wood. He
\n            was the owner of the ‘Safeda’ wood which was
\n            being transported to the market for its sale. The
\n            first respondent, Darshana Devi, in her deposition,
\n            stated that the deceased used to purchase wood
\n            from the State of Himachal Pradesh on contract
\n            basis. Only Gurdial Singh and Ravinder Singh
\n            were accompanying him as labourer. His income
\n            was assessed only at Rs. 2,400 per month.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
            21. In this view of the matter, we are of the
\n            opinion that it is not a fit case where this Court
\n            should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under
\n            Article 136<\/a> of the Constitution of India. Even in<\/p>\n
                                                                        14<\/span>
\n             Brij Mohan this Court held: (SCC p. 64, paras 13-\n<\/p>\n
             14)
\n             “13. However, Respondent 1 is a poor labourer.
\n             He had suffered grievous injuries. He had become
\n             disabled to a great extent. The amount of
\n             compensation awarded in his favour appears to be
\n             on a lower side. In the aforementioned situation,
\n             although we reject the other contentions of Ms
\n             Indu Malhotra, we are inclined to exercise our
\n             extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142<\/a> of the
\n             Constitution of India so as to direct that the award
\n             may be satisfied by the appellant but it would be
\n             entitled to realise the same from the owner of the
\n             tractor and the trolley wherefor it would not be
\n             necessary for it to initiate any separate
\n             proceedings for recovery of the amount as
\n             provided for under the Motor Vehicles Act<\/a>.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             14. It is well settled that in a situation of this
\n             nature this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
\n             under Article 142<\/a> of the Constitution of India read
\n             with Article 136<\/a> thereof can issue suit directions
\n             for doing complete justice to the parties.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
20.   Reliance, however, has been placed on a decision of this Court in<\/p>\n
State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal<\/a>, [ (2002) 8 SCC 158 ], to contend that this<\/p>\n
Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India. Whether the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article<\/p>\n
142<\/a> of the Constitution shall be exercised or not would depend upon the fact<\/p>\n
of the each matter. Law in this case does not come in the way of exercise of<\/p>\n
such jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                                        15<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
21.   For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be<\/p>\n
sustained.     It is set aside accordingly and the order of the Tribunal is<\/p>\n
restored. The appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel’s fee assessed at<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                             …………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                [ S.B. Sinha ]<\/p>\n
                                             …………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                [Cyriac Josesph ]
\nNew Delhi
\nDecember 16, 2008<\/p>\n
                                                                                  16<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mantoo Sarkar vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 16 December, 2008 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Cyriac Joseph REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7318 OF 2007 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18201 of 2007} Mantoo Sarkar ….. Appellant Versus […]<\/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-272155","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMantoo Sarkar vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 16 December, 2008 - 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\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mantoo Sarkar vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-07T01:31:20+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mantoo Sarkar vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 16 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-07T01:31:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3099,\"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\\\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Mantoo Sarkar vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-07T01:31:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mantoo Sarkar vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 16 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Mantoo Sarkar vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 16 December, 2008 - 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\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mantoo Sarkar vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-07T01:31:20+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mantoo Sarkar vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 16 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-07T01:31:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008"},"wordCount":3099,"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\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008","name":"Mantoo Sarkar vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-07T01:31:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mantoo-sarkar-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mantoo Sarkar vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 16 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/272155","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=272155"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272155\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272155"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=272155"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=272155"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}