{"id":56386,"date":"2007-08-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007"},"modified":"2019-01-30T02:41:33","modified_gmt":"2019-01-29T21:11:33","slug":"the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"The New India Assurance Company … vs Salikram on 17 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
The New India Assurance Company … vs Salikram on 17 August, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR         \n\n     MAC No.48 of 2007\n\n     The    New   India   Assurance Company Limited\n\n                                 ...Petitioners\n\n                                    VERSUS\n\n     1.  Salikram\n\n     2.  Vishnu Sahu\n\n     3.  Deepak\n                                 ...Respondents<\/pre>\n
!    Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for  the appellant\/insurer<\/p>\n
^    Shri   R.N.Jha,  counsel  for  respondent No.1\/claimant<\/p>\n
     No  one  appears  on behalf of  respondents No.2 and 3 though served<\/p>\n
     Hon’ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh J<\/p>\n
     Dated: 17\/08\/2007<\/p>\n
:    Order<\/p>\n
     Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988<\/p>\n
                     ORAL ORDER
\n            (Passed on 17th August, 2007)<\/p>\n
     Heard.\n<\/p>\n
(2)   This appeal is directed against the award dated<\/p>\n
13-10-2006 passed by Shri N.D.Ekka, Additional  Motor <\/p>\n
Accidents  Claims  Tribunal,  Khairagarh  (henceforth<\/p>\n
`the  MACT’)  in Claim Case No.24\/2005,  whereby  the<\/p>\n
MACT   has   awarded  Rs.2,42,000\/-   to   respondent<\/p>\n
No.1\/claimant  for the permanent disability  suffered<\/p>\n
by him due to the accident.\n<\/p>\n
(3)   Brief  facts are that on 09-08-2005, respondent<\/p>\n
No.1\/claimant was going to his Village  Pendri  on  a<\/p>\n
cycle.  Respondent  No.3  drove  Sumo  vehicle  No.CG <\/p>\n
09\/5003  in  a rash and negligent manner  and  dashed<\/p>\n
against  the  cycle of respondent No.1\/claimant,  who<\/p>\n
sustained fracture in radius and ulna bones  of  left<\/p>\n
fore  arm  and also sustained a serious head  injury.<\/p>\n
The  claimant  was  admitted in Chandulal  Chandrakar<\/p>\n
Memorial  Hospital, Bhilai from 10-08-2005 to  27-08-<\/p>\n
2005   and  incurred  heavy  expenses  in  treatment.<\/p>\n
Operation   of  the  fractured  montegra   was   also<\/p>\n
performed.    The   claimant  filed  the   disability<\/p>\n
certificate  and all the relevant documents  relating<\/p>\n
to treatment undertaken and expenses incurred by him.<\/p>\n
All these documents were exhibited by the MACT during <\/p>\n
statement of the claimant despite a serious objection<\/p>\n
raised  by  the  insurance company  that  unless  the<\/p>\n
doctor   granting  the  disability  certificate   was<\/p>\n
examined,  the disability certificate  could  not  be<\/p>\n
exhibited.   Taking  into consideration  the  minimum<\/p>\n
wage prevalent under law, the MACT assessed the daily <\/p>\n
income  of  respondent No.1\/claimant at Rs.100\/-  and<\/p>\n
taking  25 working days in a month, assessed  monthly<\/p>\n
income  of  respondent No.1\/claimant  at  Rs.2,500\/-.<\/p>\n
Taking  permanent disability suffered  by  respondent<\/p>\n
No.1\/claimant at 35%, the MACT assessed  compensation    <\/p>\n
as under :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     Sl.    Heads                            Amount\n     No.                                      (Rs.)\n     (i)    Loss of earning          =   1,89,000=0\n                                                  0<\/span>\n     (ii)   Expenses        towards  =    30,000=00\n            treatment\n    (iii)   Special   diet   during  =     4,000=00\n            treatment\n     (iv)   Loss of earning          =     9,000=00\n     (v)    Pain and suffering       =    10,000=00\n                              TOTAL  =   2,42,000=0\n                                                  0<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
(4)   Learned  counsel for the appellant\/insurer  has<\/p>\n
made  a two-fold submission in this appeal.  Firstly,<\/p>\n
that  the MACT ought to have taken the monthly income <\/p>\n
of  respondent No.1\/claimant at Rs.1,500\/- in view of<\/p>\n
the  admission made by the claimant in para 12 of his<\/p>\n
testimony that he was earning Rs.40-50 per day on the<\/p>\n
date  of  accident.   Secondly,  it  was  urged  that<\/p>\n
without  giving the appellant\/insurer an  opportunity<\/p>\n
of   cross-examining  the  expert  giving  disability<\/p>\n
certificate  as  also  the treating  Psychologist  or<\/p>\n
Surgeon,  the assessment of the compensation  awarded  <\/p>\n
by the MACT could not be sustained under law. <\/p>\n
(5)   Shri  R.N.Jha, learned counsel  for  respondent<\/p>\n
No.1\/claimant  argued  in  support  of  the  impugned<\/p>\n
award.\n<\/p>\n
\n(6)   Having considered the rival submissions, I have<\/p>\n
perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
\n(7)   It is true that the claimant has in para 12  of<\/p>\n
his  testimony admitted before the MACT that  he  was<\/p>\n
earning  Rs.30-35 per day as an agricultural labourer<\/p>\n
and  after he started working at the petrol pump, the<\/p>\n
owner of the petrol pump was paying him Rs.40-50  per<\/p>\n
day  as wages.  However, it needs to be noticed  that<\/p>\n
the  claimant had suffered a serious head injury  due<\/p>\n
to  the  accident  and  had undertaken  operation  of<\/p>\n
montegra  bone  and  had deposed  that  there  was  a<\/p>\n
complete  loss  of memory due to the  accident.   The<\/p>\n
claimant had also filed a certificate, Ex.P-72  given<\/p>\n
by  the Psychologist, which revealed traces of memory<\/p>\n
loss  due  to  the accident.   The Psychologist,  who<\/p>\n
gave   certificate,  Ex.P-72,  ought  to  have   been<\/p>\n
examined by the claimant so as to give an opportunity<\/p>\n
to  the  insurer  to  test  the  genuineness  of  the<\/p>\n
document   by   cross-examining  the  witness.    The<\/p>\n
testimony of Aganuram Sahu also shows that there  was  <\/p>\n
functional imbalance in the mind of the claimant  due<\/p>\n
to  the  accident.  The MACT, while  determining  the<\/p>\n
daily   income  of  the  claimant,  ought   to   have<\/p>\n
considered the testimony of the employer Amit  Chopra<\/p>\n
in  para  7  giving  a  detailed description  of  the<\/p>\n
functions,  which  respondent No.1\/claimant  used  to<\/p>\n
perform at the petrol pump.\n<\/p>\n
(8)   The  appellant\/insurer had raised an  objection<\/p>\n
before the MACT while the disability certificate  and<\/p>\n
other  documents  were exhibited that  the  concerned<\/p>\n
doctor  should  be  examined  before  exhibiting  the<\/p>\n
documents.  A Division Bench of this Court in  Rajesh<\/p>\n
Kumar  Kaushik  vs. Tej Narayan Singh,  Miscellaneous <\/p>\n
Appeal  (C.)  No.818\/2007<\/a> decided on 20-07-2007,  has<\/p>\n
held as under :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “If   the  appellant  really   wants
\n          support  from  the  opinion  of  any
\n          doctor  or  board  of  doctors,  the
\n          Insurance company and the  owner  of
\n          the  vehicle, against whom the  said
\n          opinion  will  be  used,  should  be
\n          given   an  opportunity  to   cross-
\n          examine   those  persons   for   the
\n          purpose of ascertaining the truth of
\n          their   opinion  contained  in   the
\n          certificate;  it is preposterous  to
\n          suggest  that  by mere  producing  a
\n          certificate  showing that  a  person
\n          had  become disabled, he  can  force
\n          the  Insurance Company or the  owner
\n          of  the  vehicle to pay compensation
\n          though   the  genuineness   of   the
\n          document is not proved and they  are
\n          not  in  a position to cross-examine
\n          the  person who has allegedly  given
\n          such opinion.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(9)   In  Rajesh  Kumar Kaushik v. Tej Narayan  Singh<\/a><\/p>\n
(supra), the Court further held as under:<\/p>\n
          “that a duty is cast on the MACT  to
\n          ensure that process is issued to the
\n          doctor concerned issuing certificate
\n          of   permanent  disability  and  his
\n          attendance  secured  in  the  Court.
\n          Under  the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
\n          the  MACT is under an obligation  to
\n          award     just     and    reasonable
\n          compensation and can not  shirk  its
\n          responsibility by taking shelter  of
\n          the   fact  that  the  claimant  had
\n          failed to examine the doctor issuing
\n          the    certificate   of    permanent
\n          disability.  In most of the cases in
\n          Chhattisgarh,   the  claimants   are
\n          illiterate  and poor  villagers  and
\n          sometimes  illiterate widows,  minor
\n          children etc. The Presiding Judge of
\n          the  MACT in such cases should  take
\n          pains  to see that process is issued
\n          to   the   doctor   concerned,   his
\n          attendance secured in the Court  and
\n          the insurer is given opportunity  to
\n          cross-examine   the   doctor.    The
\n          Presiding  Judge of the  MACT  being
\n          under  an  obligation to award  just
\n          and  reasonable compensation  should
\n          not remain a silent spectator during
\n          the proceedings”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(10)  In  view  of the law laid down in Rajesh  Kumar<\/p>\n
Kaushik  vs. Tej Narayan Singh<\/a> (supra), the  impugned<\/p>\n
award is liable to be set aside.  In the interest  of<\/p>\n
justice  and  to  give  a  fair  opportunity  to  the<\/p>\n
appellant\/insurer  to  test the  genuineness  of  the<\/p>\n
certificate   of   permanent   disability   and   the<\/p>\n
certificate  Ex.P-72  issued by the  Psychologist  by<\/p>\n
cross-examining the doctor giving such opinion, it is<\/p>\n
necessary  to remand the matter to the MACT,  and  to<\/p>\n
give an opportunity to the appellant\/insurer to cross-<\/p>\n
examine such witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
(11)  In  view of the above, the appeal  is  allowed.<\/p>\n
The  impugned  award is set aside and the  matter  is<\/p>\n
remitted   to  the  MACT.   The  MACT  shall,   after<\/p>\n
complying with the direction in Rajesh Kumar  Kaushik<\/p>\n
vs. Tej Narayan Singh<\/a> (supra) quoted in paragraphs  8<\/p>\n
and   9,   decide   expeditiously  the   quantum   of<\/p>\n
compensation  payable to the claimant  under  Section<\/p>\n
166 of the Act, 1988 in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court The New India Assurance Company … vs Salikram on 17 August, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No.48 of 2007 The New India Assurance Company Limited …Petitioners VERSUS 1. Salikram 2. Vishnu Sahu 3. Deepak …Respondents ! Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appellant\/insurer ^ Shri R.N.Jha, counsel […]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56386","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe New India Assurance Company ... vs Salikram on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The New India Assurance Company ... vs Salikram on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-29T21:11:33+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The New India Assurance Company … vs Salikram on 17 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-29T21:11:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1167,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007\",\"name\":\"The New India Assurance Company ... vs Salikram on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-29T21:11:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The New India Assurance Company … vs Salikram on 17 August, 2007\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The New India Assurance Company ... vs Salikram on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The New India Assurance Company ... vs Salikram on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-29T21:11:33+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The New India Assurance Company … vs Salikram on 17 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-29T21:11:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007"},"wordCount":1167,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007","name":"The New India Assurance Company ... vs Salikram on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-29T21:11:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-new-india-assurance-company-vs-salikram-on-17-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The New India Assurance Company … vs Salikram on 17 August, 2007"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/56386","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=56386"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56386\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56386"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56386"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56386"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}