{"id":47123,"date":"2004-01-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-01-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004"},"modified":"2015-11-03T12:50:42","modified_gmt":"2015-11-03T07:20:42","slug":"ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: K . V.N.<\/div>\n
Bench: Cji., V. N. Khare, S.B. Sinha, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  16 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.     \t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBaljit Kaur and Ors. \t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/01\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nCJI., V. N.  Khare,S.B. Sinha & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
(Arising out of S.L.P. [C] No. 17763 of 2001)<\/p>\n
WITH<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17\/04 (@ SLP (C) No. 17837\/01)
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 18\/04 (@ SLP (C) No. 18027\/01)
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 20\/04 (@ SLP (C) No. 5220\/02)
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 27\/04 (@ SLP (C) No. 5225\/02)
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 28\/04 (@ SLP (C) No. 6045\/02)
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 26\/04 (@ SLP (C) No. 6046\/02)
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 25\/04 (@ SLP (C) No. 6047\/02)
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 24\/04 (@ SLP (C) No. 6048\/02)
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 23\/04 (@ SLP (C) No. 6049\/02)
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 22\/04 (@ SLP (C) No. 6050\/02)
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 21\/04 (@ SLP (C) No. 6051\/02)<\/p>\n
V.N. KHARE, CJI.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether
\nan insurance policy in respect of a goods vehicle would also cover gratuitous
\npassengers, in view of the legislative amendment in 1994 to Section 147 of
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
The first respondent herein preferred a claim petition for
\ncompensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana
\n(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’), in view of the death of her
\nsixteen year old son, Sukhwinder Singh, due to the allegedly reckless driving
\nby the second respondent and driver of the goods vehicle, bearing Number
\nPB-10U-8937, on February 19, 1999.  It was found by the Claims Tribunal
\nthat the victim, who was returning in the truck from a marriage ceremony,
\ndied as a result of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the goods
\nvehicle, the second respondent herein.  It was an admitted fact that the said
\nvehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company.
\nThe Claims Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in New
\nIndia Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh<\/a> (2000) 1 SCC 237, accepted the claim
\npetition, and rejected the contention of the appellant insurance company that
\nthe concerned vehicle being a goods vehicle, it would not have to incur any
\nliability with respect to passengers transported in the vehicle.  It further
\ndirected the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.1,32,000\/- as compensation,
\nwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date of application.  The High  Court
\nupheld the verdict of the Claims Tribunal on appeal, with the further
\ndirection that in the event the owner, the third respondent herein, had
\ncommitted any breach, the appellant insurer would be entitled to recover the
\namount of compensation from him.\n<\/p>\n
It may be noticed at the outset that the Judgment rendered in Satpal
\nSingh case (supra) has been subsequently reversed by a three-judge Bench
\nof this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani (2003) 2 SCC
\n223, which was followed in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
\nDevireddy Konda Reddy (2003) 2 SCC 339.\n<\/p>\n
\tReference in this connection may also be made to National Insurance
\nCo. Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar and Others<\/a> [JT 2003 (7) SC 520].
\nIn the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani (Supra),
\nit was held that the previous decision in Satpal Singh Case, was incorrectly
\nrendered, and that the words “any person” as used in Section 147 of the
\nMotor Vehicles Act, 1988, would not include passengers in the goods
\nvehicle, but would rather be confined to the legislative intent to provide for
\nthird party risk.  The question in the subsequent judgment in Oriental
\nInsurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devireddy Konda Reddy (supra), involved, as in the
\npresent case, the liability of the insurance company in the event of death
\ncaused to a gratuitous passenger traveling in a goods vehicle.  The Court
\nheld that the Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in placing
\nreliance upon Satpal Singh case (supra), in view of its reversal by Asha
\nRani (supra), and that, accordingly, the insurer would not be liable to pay
\ncompensation to the family of the victim who was traveling in a goods
\nvehicle.\n<\/p>\n
It was contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nsecond and third respondents, the driver and owner of the vehicle
\nrespectively, that the decision in Asha Rani case (supra) and Konda Reddy
\ncase (supra) were delivered with respect to the position prevailing prior to
\nthe amendment of Section 147 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act,
\n1994.  As such, the effect of the legislative amendment was not in question
\nin the above cases, and therefore, the law laid down by these decisions
\nwould not be considered as binding law in view of coming into force of the
\nsaid amendment.  Since the accident in the present instance occurred in
\n1999, this Court would now have to consider afresh the impact of the 1994
\namendment, and could not consider itself circumscribed by the
\naforementioned decisions in the Asha Rani case (supra) and   Konda Reddy
\ncase (supra) which both involved motor accidents predating the said
\namendment.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is the submission of the respondent vehicle owner and driver that
\nthe insertion, by way of legislative amendment, of the words “including
\nowner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle” in
\nSection 147 would result in the inference that gratuitous passengers would as
\nwell be covered by the scope of the provision.  Any other construction, it
\nwas urged by the learned counsel for the second and third respondents,
\nwould render the effect of the words “any person” as completely redundant.\n<\/p>\n
The material portion of the provision contained in Section 147 of the
\nMotor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment)
\nAct, 1994 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“147. Requirements of policies and limits of
\nliability- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of
\nthis Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy
\nwhich-\n<\/p>\n
(a)<\/p>\n
(b) insures the person or classes of persons
\nspecified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-
\nsection (2)  <\/p>\n
(i)\tagainst any liability which may be
\nincurred by him in respect of the
\ndeath of or bodily injury to any
\nperson, including owner of the goods
\nor his authorized representative
\ncarried in the vehicle or damage to
\nany property of a third party caused
\nby or arising out of the use of the
\nvehicle in a public place;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\t*            *              *\"\n\n(emphasis added)  \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tAdmittedly, it is incumbent upon a Court of law to eschew that
\ninterpretation of a statute that would serve to negate its true import, or to
\nrender the words of any provision as superfluous.  Nonetheless, we find no
\nmerit in the above submissions proffered by the learned counsel for the
\nrespondent.  The effect of the 1994 amendment on Section 147 is
\nunambiguous.  Where earlier, the words “any person” could be held not to
\ninclude the owner of the goods or his authorized representative travelling in
\nthe goods vehicle, Parliament has now made it clear that such a construction
\nis no longer possible.  The scope of this rationale does not, however, extend
\nto cover the class of cases where gratuitous passengers for whom no
\ninsurance policy was envisaged, and for whom no insurance premium was
\npaid, employ the goods vehicle as a medium of conveyance.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe find ourselves unable, furthermore, to countenance the contention
\nof the respondents that the words “any person” as used in Section 147 of the
\nMotor Vehicles Act, would be rendered otiose by an interpretation that
\nremoved gratuitous passengers from the ambit of the same.  It was observed
\nby this Court in the case concerning New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
\nAsha Rani (supra) that the true purport of the words “any person” is to be
\nfound in the liability of the insurer for third party risk, which was sought to
\nbe provided for by the enactment.\n<\/p>\n
It is pertinent to note that a statutory liability enjoined upon an owner
\nof the vehicle to compulsorily insure it so as to cover the liability in respect
\nof a person who was travelling in a vehicle pursuant to a contract of
\nemployment in terms of proviso (ii) appended to Section 95 of the 1939 Act
\ndoes not occur in Section 147 of the 1988 Act.  The changes effected in the
\n1988 Act vis-`-vis the 1939 Act as regard definitions of ‘goods vehicle’,
\n‘public service vehicle’ and ‘stage carriage’ have also a bearing on the subject
\ninasmuch as the concept of any goods carriage carrying any passenger or
\nany other person was not contemplated.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn a situation of this nature, the doctrine of suppression of mischief
\nrule as adumbrated in Heydon’s case [3 Co Rep 7a, 76 ER 637] shall apply.
\nSuch an amendment was made by the Parliament consciously.  Having
\nregard to the definition of ‘goods carriage’ vis-`-vis ‘public service vehicle’, it
\nis clear that whereas the goods carriage carrying any passenger is not
\ncontemplated under the 1988 Act as the same must be used solely for
\ncarrying the goods.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Halsbury’s Laws of England, Volume 44(1), fourth reissue, para
\n1474, pp 906-07, it is stated :\n<\/p>\n
\t“Parliament intends that an enactment shall
\nremedy a particular mischief and it is therefore
\npresumed that Parliament intends that the court,
\nwhen considering, in relation to the facts of the
\ninstant case, which of the opposing constructions
\nof the enactment corresponds to its legal meaning,
\nshould find a construction which applies the
\nremedy provided by it in such a way as to suppress
\nthat  mischief.  The doctrine originates in Heydon’s
\ncase where the Barons of the Exchequer resolved
\nthat for the sure and true interpretation of all
\nstatutes in general (be they penal or beneficial,
\nrestrictive or enlarging of the common law), four
\nthings are to be discerned and considered :\n<\/p>\n
(1)\twhat was the common law before the
\nmaking of the Act;\n<\/p>\n
(2)\twhat was the mischief and defect for which
\nthe common law did not provide;\n<\/p>\n
(3)\twhat remedy Parliament has resolved and
\nappointed to cure the disease of the
\ncommonwealth; and<\/p>\n
(4)\tthe true reason of the remedy,<\/p>\n
and then the office of all the judges is always to
\nmake such construction as shall :\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tsuppress the mischief and advance the
\nremedy; and<\/p>\n
(b)\tsuppress subtle inventions and
\nevasions for the continuance of the
\nmischief pro privato commodo (for
\nprivate benefit); and<\/p>\n
(c)\tadd force and life to the cure and
\nremedy according to the true intent of
\nthe makers of the Act pro publico (for
\nthe public good).”\n<\/p>\n
Heydon’s Rule has been applied by this Court in a large number of
\ncases in order to suppress the mischief which was intended to be remedied as
\nagainst the literal rule which could have otherwise covered the field. [See for
\nexample, Smt. PEK Kalliani Amma and Others vs. K. Devi and Others,<\/a>
\n[AIR 1996 SC 1963; Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and
\nOthers, AIR<\/a> 1955 SC 661; and Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and
\nAnother, AIR 1990 SC 781].\n<\/p>\n
By reason of the 1994 Amendment what was added is “including the
\nowner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle”.
\nThe liability of the owner of the vehicle to insure it compulsorily, thus, by
\nreason of the aforementioned amendment included only the owner of the
\ngoods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle besides the third
\nparties.  The intention of the Parliament, therefore, could not have been that
\nthe words ‘any person’ occurring in Section 147 would cover all persons who
\nwere travelling in a goods carriage in any capacity whatsoever.  If such was
\nthe intention there was no necessity of the Parliament to carry out an
\namendment inasmuch as expression ‘any person’ contained in sub-clause (i)
\nof clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 would have included the
\nowner of the goods or his authorised representative besides the passengers
\nwho are gratuitous or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
  The observations made in this connection by the Court in Asha Rani
\ncase (supra) to which one of us, Sinha, J, was a party, however, bear
\nrepetition:\n<\/p>\n
“26.  In view of the changes in the relevant
\nprovisions in the 1988 Act vis-`-vis the 1939 Act,
\nwe are of the opinion that the meaning of the
\nwords “any person” must also be attributed having
\nregard to the context in which they have been used
\ni.e. “a third party”.  Keeping in view the provisions
\nof the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the
\nprovisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory
\nliability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle
\ninsured for any passenger traveling in a goods
\nvehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor.”\n<\/p>\n
In Asha Rani (supra), it has been noticed that sub-clause (i) of clause\n<\/p>\n
(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the 1988 Act speaks of liability
\nwhich may be incurred  by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or
\nbodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused
\nby or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.  Furthermore, an
\nowner of a passenger-carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the
\nrisks of the passengers travelling in the vehicle.  The premium in view of the
\n1994 Amendment would only cover a third party as also the owner of the
\ngoods or his authorised representative and not any passenger carried in a
\ngoods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the
\neffect of the provision contained  in Section 147 with respect to persons
\nother than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains
\nthe same.  Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative
\nwould now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods
\nvehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability
\nof the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers,
\nwho were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was
\nentered into, nor  any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of
\ninsurance to such category of  people.\n<\/p>\n
The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in
\nplace of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the
\ndecree.  The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the
\nfact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and
\nequitable.  We do not think so.  We, therefore, clarify the legal position
\nwhich shall have prospective effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had
\nproceeded in terms of the decisions of this Court in Satpal Singh (supra).
\nThe said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani (supra).
\nWe, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be sub-
\nserved if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in
\nfavour of the claimant if not already satisfied and recover the same from the
\nowner of the vehicle.  For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be
\nnecessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a
\nproceeding before the executing court as if the dispute between the insurer
\nand the owner was the subject matter of determination before the tribunal
\nand the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer.  We
\nhave issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and
\npurport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in terms whereof it
\nis not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the
\nclaimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle
\njointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand
\nand the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as
\ncan be resolved by the tribunal in such a proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
 \tFor the aforementioned reasons, the appeals are partly allowed to the
\naforementioned extent and subject to the directions aforementioned.  But
\nthere shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004 Author: K . V.N. Bench: Cji., V. N. Khare, S.B. Sinha, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 16 of 2004 PETITIONER: M\/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. RESPONDENT: Baljit Kaur and Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/01\/2004 BENCH: […]<\/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-47123","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004 - 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\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-03T07:20:42+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-03T07:20:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2601,\"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\\\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-03T07:20:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004 - 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\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-03T07:20:42+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004","datePublished":"2004-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-03T07:20:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004"},"wordCount":2601,"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\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004","name":"M\/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-03T07:20:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-national-insurance-co-ltd-vs-baljit-kaur-and-ors-on-6-january-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004"}]},{"@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\/47123","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=47123"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47123\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47123"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47123"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47123"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}