{"id":37758,"date":"2009-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009"},"modified":"2018-12-15T20:20:58","modified_gmt":"2018-12-15T14:50:58","slug":"new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Bimla And Others on 1 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Bimla And Others on 1 December, 2009<\/div>\n
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\nF.A.O. No.1928 of 2008 and other connected cases\n\nDate of decision: December 01, 2009\n\nNew India Assurance Co. Ltd.\n                                                          .. Appellant\n\n                   Vs.\n\nBimla and others\n                                                          .. Respondents\n\n\nCoram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal\n\nPresent:    Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the appellant.\n            Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate for the respondent No.1.\n            Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate for the respondent No.2.\n            None for the respondent No.3.\n\nA.N. Jindal, J\n\n            This judgment of mine shall dispose of a bunch of 16 connected\nappeals, i.e. FAO Nos. 1928 to 1932, 1934 to 1940 and 1942 to 1945 of\n2008 having arisen out of the judgment dated 20.12.2007 passed by the\nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind, awarding compensation as under :-\n\n\n                   Case No. & Title                        Compensation\nMACT Case No.170 of 2004, Bimla Devi vs. Raj Kumar and       Rs.19,000\/-\nothers\nMACT Case No.171 of<\/a> 2004, Mani Ram and another vs. Raj      Rs.1,68,800\/-\nKumar and others\n\nMACT Case No.51 of 2005, Bimla vs. Raj Kumar and others      Rs.19,000\/-\nMACT Case No.17of 2005, Mohan vs. Raj Kumar and              Rs.19,000\/-\nothers\nMACT Case No.50 of 2005, Sandeep (minor through his          Rs.14,000\/-\nnatural guardian and father) vs. Raj Kumar and others\nMACT Case No.14 of 2005, Seema vs. Raj Kumar and             Rs.19,000\/-\nothers\nMACT Case No.16 of<\/a> 2005, Sarbati Devi vs. Raj Kumar and      Rs.19,000\/-\nothers\nMACT Case No.54 of<\/a> 2005, Parmeshwari Devi vs. Raj            Rs.13,800\/-\nKumar and others\nMACT Case No.55 of 2005, Hawa Singh vs. Raj Kumar and       Rs.2,52,000\/-\nothers\n F.A.O. No.1928 of<\/a> 2008                                            -2-\n\n                                       ***\n<\/pre>\n
                    Case No. & Title                         Compensation\nMACT Case No.53 of 2005, Miss Kavita vs. Raj Kumar and         Rs.14,000\/-\nothers\nMACT Case No.52 of 2005, Ram Singh and others vs. Raj         Rs.2,36,000\/-\nKumar and others\nMACT Case No. 32 of 2005, Kamla vs. Raj Kumar and             Rs.2,09,200\/-\nothers\nMACT Case No.78 of<\/a> 2005, Ompati vs. Raj Kumar and              Rs.20,000\/-\nothers\nMACT Case No.13 of 2005, Parmeshwari Devi vs. Raj              Rs.40,000\/-\nKumar and others\nMACT Case No.15 of 2005, Bhateri Devi vs. Raj Kumar and        Rs.19,000\/-\nothers\nMACT Case No.79 of 2005, Nanki vs. Raj Kumar and others        Rs.19,000\/-\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
              All the claimants were also awarded interest @ 7.5% per
\nannum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.\n<\/p>\n
              The common point raised in these appeals is that whether the
\nInsurance Company was liable to pay compensation for gratuitous
\npassengers taken by the respondent No.1-driver in claim petition (herein
\nreferred as ‘the respondent No.1’) in a goods carrier vehicle and that the
\nagricultural labourers taken in a tractor could be termed as gratuitous
\npassengers.\n<\/p>\n
              Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to the accident are
\nthat on 18.11.2004, claimants Bimla Devi, Sarbati, Sheela, Angoori, Kamla,
\nBhateri, Parmeshwari, Kalawati and other agricultural labourers had gone to
\nthe fields of Mahender Teli in village Danoda Khurd for plucking cotton
\nbuds. They were working on daily wage basis. The transport for carrying
\nagricultural labourers was to be provided by the owner. After plucking
\ncotton buds from the fields, they were returning to village Narwana from
\nvillage Danoda Khurd by boarding Farmtrac-30 tractor trolley bearing
\nengine No.2017424 and Chassis No. 2017166, which was later on registered
\nat registration No.HR-22-8372. The respondent No.1 while driving the said
\ntractor trolley rashly and negligently reached some distance ahead of village
\nDanoda Khurd towards Narwana, then all the occupants of the tractor trolley
\nspotted a big truck parked on its correct side of the road and a tyre was also
\nplaced on the road for communicating about its going out of order. The
\nrespondent No.1 did not notice the said tyre         and consequently struck
\n F.A.O. No.1928 of 2008                                          -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ***<\/p>\n
against the tyre, resultantly the trolley turned turtle, all the agricultural
\nlabourers travelling in the trolley suffered multiple injuries. Out of the said
\ninjured, three ladies namely Sheela, Kalawati and Angoori had died,
\nwhereas, the others were treated for the injuries. The FIR regarding the
\naforesaid accident was lodged against the respondent No.1. Eventually, 16
\nclaim petitions were filed by the different claimants either for the death or
\nthe injuries suffered by the injured respectively.\n<\/p>\n
              All the claim petitions were contested. In their joint written
\nstatement, the respondents No.1 and 2 blatantly denied the accident and
\nstated that they have been falsely involved in the case. The respondent
\nNo.3-Insurance Company in its separate reply asserted that the accident had
\ntaken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tralla
\nwho had parked the same on the road and had placed a tyre in the middle of
\nthe road. Besides, some preliminary objections were also taken.\n<\/p>\n
              The Insurance Company also took the plea that the driver of the
\noffending truck was not holding a valid driving licence and that the
\npetitions were result of collusion with the claimants and the respondents
\nNo.1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
              All the 16 claim petitions were consolidated vide order dated
\n8.3.2006 passed by the Tribunal and the evidence was recorded in claim
\npetition No.170 of 2004 (Bimla Devi vs. Raj Kumar and others<\/a>).\n<\/p>\n
              From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
\nframed :-\n<\/p>\n
              1.    Whether Smt. Kalawati, Smt. Sheela and Smt. Angoori
\n                    died and petitioners Smt. Bimla, Smt. Parmeshwari Devi,
\n                    Smt. Seema, Smt. Sarbati Devi, Mohan, Smt. Kamla,
\n                    Smt. Bhateri Devi, Sandeep, Smt. Bimla wife of Ram
\n                    Sarup, Smt. Kavita, Smt. Parmeshwari Devi wife of
\n                    Banwari Lal, Smt. Ompati and Smt. Nanki Devi suffered
\n                    injuries in an accident which took place on 18.11.2004 in
\n                    the area of village Banoda Khurd (District Jind) due to
\n                    rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing Engine
\n                    No.2417424,     Chassis   No.2017166      by   respondent
\n                    No.1?OPP
\n F.A.O. No.1928 of 2008                                         -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ***<\/p>\n
            2.     Whether the driver of the tractor (respondent No.1) did
\n                   not hold a valid driving licence and if so, to what effect?
\n                   OPR-3\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3.     Whether the petitioners are entitled to award of
\n                   compensation and if so, how much and from whom?OPP\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            4.     Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In order to prove the claim petitions, in addition to examining
\ninjured Kamla (PW1), Sarbati (PW4), Parmeshwari (PW5), Kavita (PW7),
\nParmeshwari wife of Banwari Lal (PW8), Bimla wife of Ram Sarup (PW9),
\nBhateri Devi (PW11), Nanki (PW12), Seema (PW13), Ompati (PW14) and
\nMohan (PW15), the claimants have also examined Mani Ram (PW2), Hawa
\nSingh (PW6), Ram Singh (PW10), Ram Singh (PW16), Dr. Virender
\nBaswana (P:W17), Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW18) and ASI Rajender Singh
\n(PW19).\n<\/p>\n
            To the contrary, respondents no.1 and 2 examined Baljit Singh
\nAdditional Ahlmad (RW1) and Raj Kumar (RW2). The respondent No.3-
\nInsurance Company examined Clerk from Licensing Authority Hisar
\n(RW3), Daljit Singh (RW4) Clerk R.T.A. Office Hisar and R.P. Khanna
\nBranch Manager (RW5).\n<\/p>\n
            On appreciation of evidence on record, the respondent No.1
\nwas held to be holding a valid driving licence.         The Tribunal while
\nobserving that the accident had taken place due to the negligence on the part
\nof the driver of the tractor trolley decided issue No.1 against the
\nrespondents. Ultimately, all the claim petitions were partly accepted in
\nterms as referred to above.\n<\/p>\n
            While developing the argument that the tractor trolley could be
\nsaid to be a goods carrier vehicle insured for the sole purpose of agriculture
\nand was not meant to carry the passengers, as such, the same could not be
\ninsured for carrying any passengers, therefore, the act of the respondent
\nNo.1 being in contravention of the terms of the policy, the appellant was not
\nliable to pay any compensation for the persons who had died or received
\ninjuries while travelling in the goods vehicle. In order to support this
\ncontention, the learned counsel has taken me through the judgment
\ndelivered by the Apex Court in case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.
\n F.A.O. No.1928 of 2008                                         -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   ***<\/p>\n
Vedwati and others, 2007 (2) PLR 72, wherein it was observed as under :-\n<\/p>\n
            “13. The difference in the language of “goods vehicle” as
\n            appear in the old Act and “goods carriage” in the Act is of
\n            significance. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear
\n            that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from
\n            carrying any passenger. This is clear from the expression “in
\n            addition to passengers” as contained in definition of ” goods
\n            vehicle” in the old Act. The position becomes further clear
\n            because the expression used is “goods carriage” is solely for
\n            the carriage of goods. Carrying of passengers in a goods
\n            carriage is not contemplated in the Act. There is no provision
\n            similar to clause (ii) of the Proviso appended to Section 95 of
\n            the old Act prescribing requirement of insurance policy. Even
\n            Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against
\n            death of or bodily injury to any passenger of “public service
\n            vehicle”. The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory
\n            coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service
\n            vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be
\n            limited to liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
\n            1923 (in short W.C. Act).      There is no reference to any
\n            passenger in “goods carriage”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            14.   The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of
\n            the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a
\n            vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling
\n            in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability
\n            therefore.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Eventually, the Apex Court accepted the appeal and exonerated
\nthe Insurance Company from the liability. The facts in the background of
\nthe case, as involved in Vedwati’s case (supra) were that the deceased when
\nwas returning from his village Gokhita from Atarra in tractor bearing
\nregistration No. MP-16A-2637, after delivering certain goods there. The
\ntractor over turned as a result of which the deceased died. The Tribunal in
\nthe circumstances had held that there was a violation of the terms of the
\npolicy as the tractor could only be used for agricultural work and same
\n F.A.O. No.1928 of 2008                                            -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                       ***<\/p>\n
could not be used for carrying the passengers, whereas, the High Court had
\nupset the findings and ultimately the appeal preferred by the Insurance
\nCompany before the Apex Court was accepted.\n<\/p>\n
               It was urged that tractor trolley is a goods carriage vehicle and
\nnot a transport vehicle. The same could be used only for the agricultural
\npurpose and not to carry the passengers including the labourer. If the tractor
\nis plied for other than agricultural purpose, in that event, the claimant,
\ninjured or the deceased could be termed as gratuitous passengers and thus,
\ntheir claim is not covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
\n1988. It was also contended that in the instant case since the tractor having
\nnot been used for agricultural purpose and it was only for loading the
\npassengers in that situation there was violation of the condition of the
\ncontract of insurance. To the contrary, while strenuously contending that
\nhis case is of different nature, counsel for the respondents without denying
\nthe use of the tractor trolly for carrying passengers, he has stressed that the
\nlabourers who were taken for plucking the buds from the field, were being
\nbrought back to their houses, these labourers involved in the accident could
\nin no terms be treated as passengers or much less gratuitous passengers as
\nthey were hired to work in the fields and it was the respondent who was to
\ntake them to the fields and bring them back. Transport of the labourers by a
\ntractor owner could be considered to be a part of agriculture work. The
\nword “agricultural purpose” should not be construed so strictly as to
\nexclude the workers who were wholly involved, meant for and used for
\nagriculture.\n<\/p>\n
               Some merit could be found in the contentions as set up by the
\nrespondents. The tractor is specially designed motor vehicle not constructed
\nto carry any load but the same could be used for the purpose of propulsion.
\nIt is light motor vehicle; it could be used on or off the road specially for
\nagricultural purposes. It was observed in Nagashetty vs. United India
\nInsurance Co. Ltd. and others AIR<\/a> 2001 Supreme Court 3356 that the
\ntractor with trolley may not become a transport vehicle and hence the person
\nwho had LMV licence may not be said to be eligible to drive a tractor with
\ntrolley. Tractor could be put into use and come into aid of farmers for use
\nof agricultural implement\/equipments. The word “agricultural use” should
\n F.A.O. No.1928 of 2008                                         -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ***<\/p>\n
not be construed so strictly as to exclude the workers who are being hired,
\ninvolved, meant for and used for agricultural purpose.     It has been     the
\npractice of the day that on the country side where transport vehicles are not
\navailable and roads are not existing, the farmers who hire the labour to do
\nagricultural work by them to the fields for sowing, irrigating, harvesting,
\nplucking the buds, collecting the fruits, packing or making the bundles have
\nno other source to take them to their fields, they carry them in their tractor
\ntrolleys and bring back to their houses after day’s work. In such situation,
\nthose labourers could safely be said to be instruments of the agriculture as
\nsuch they could not be termed as gratuitous passengers so as to exclude the
\nliability of the Insurance Company. Our Division Bench in case United
\nIndia Insurance Company Limited vs. Surinder and others<\/a>, 2004 (4)
\nR.C.R. (Civil) 211 while holding that the tractor includes the trailer and is
\ncovered under the insurance policy, observed as under :-\n<\/p>\n
            “Admittedly, the offending vehicle i.e. tractor was insured
\n            comprehensively against a premium of Rs.2,076\/- with the
\n            appellant-Company. Now the question to be seen is whether
\n            any agriculture instrument attached to the tractor is deemed to
\n            be insured along with the tractor. The word “tractor” has
\n            been defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as under :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   “The tractor means a motor vehicle which is not itself
\n                   constructed to carry any load other than (the equipments
\n                   used for the purpose) or propulsion but excludes a road
\n                   roller.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   A perusal of the definition of word ‘tractor’ shows that
\n            tractor itself is not able to carry any load without the
\n            equipments. Therefore, any equipment attached to the tractor
\n            is a part of the tractor and covered under the           insurance
\n            policy.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Labour taken to the fields also could not be treated as
\npassengers. Had there been any source of transportation for taking them to
\nthe fields and bringing them back, then certainly they could be taken and
\nconsidered as passengers but where labourer meant for agriculture is taken
\nto the fields and is used for the agricultural purpose, then the same could
\n F.A.O. No.1928 of 2008                                         -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ***<\/p>\n
also be treated as use for “agriculture purpose”. Thus, to carry such labour
\ncannot be termed as breach of condition of policy by the insured.\n<\/p>\n
             According to Section 147 of the Act, as amended in the year
\n1994, the insurance policy would cover the risk of third party as also owner
\nof the goods. It has been observed in case M\/s National Insurance Co.
\nLtd. vs. Balit Kaur and others<\/a>, 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 722 that the policy
\ncovered the risk of third party labourer carried by the owner for the
\nagricultural purpose, could certainly be said to be third party and it also
\ncannot be said that they were not being used for agricultural purpose. It was
\nobserved in case Malkibai and others vs. Badriprasad and others, 1996
\nACJ 38 that if the tractor was being used for the agricultural purpose in
\nassistance even for hire of other cultivators, the insurance company cannot
\nbe allowed to say that the same was being used not for agricultural purpose.\n<\/p>\n
             Thus, while examining the case from all the angles, it would be
\ninappropriate to hold that the respondent acted in violation of the terms of
\nthe policy or that the tractor was used other than the agricultural purpose
\nand the persons carried by the driver were the gratuitous passengers.\n<\/p>\n
             As regards the quantum of compensation, the respondents
\nbeing the labourers hail from the poor families and on the death of the ladies
\nand others having suffered injuries, reasonable compensation appears to
\nhave been awarded suggesting no interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
             Hence, all the appeals filed by the Insurance Company stand
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
December 01, 2009                                        (A.N. Jindal)\ndeepak                                                         Judge\n\n\n\nWhether refer to reporter : Yes.\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Bimla And Others on 1 December, 2009 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No.1928 of 2008 and other connected cases Date of decision: December 01, 2009 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. Bimla and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37758","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNew India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Bimla And Others on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Bimla And Others on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-15T14:50:58+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Bimla And Others on 1 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-15T14:50:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2357,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009\",\"name\":\"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Bimla And Others on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-15T14:50:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Bimla And Others on 1 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Bimla And Others on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Bimla And Others on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-15T14:50:58+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Bimla And Others on 1 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-15T14:50:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009"},"wordCount":2357,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009","name":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Bimla And Others on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-15T14:50:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-bimla-and-others-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Bimla And Others on 1 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/37758","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=37758"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37758\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37758"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37758"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}