{"id":69297,"date":"2008-11-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008"},"modified":"2014-12-08T22:05:59","modified_gmt":"2014-12-08T16:35:59","slug":"united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"United India Insurance Company &#8230; vs Smt Pushpalatha on 6 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">United India Insurance Company &#8230; vs Smt Pushpalatha on 6 November, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: N.K.Patil<\/div>\n<pre>IN THE HIGH COLEKT OF KARNATAKAE AT EANGALORE W.P\u00abNe.32?4 OF 208'?\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATE!) wars mm am on or novmuamz, \n\nBEFORE  _ L\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PAT\u00a7_L=.Vv    %\n\nBETWEEN'.\n\namen um\u00bb. msuamce comtwzv um :50'  \nDWESKINAL omce NQXI  'V '\u00bb . ' ' T -- -'\nNQ198 MANJUNATHA commex \" -  \n\n2ND moor: cw ROAQ, |NQlRA'NiaGAR  \nBANGALORE 33. REF',_B'?'..T1-{E MA}\u00abtAi'.~EE\u00a5?.v ~ A _\nREC-IAONAL omce , samK.ARANAt2VAvANA..,  _\nBUILDING No.25 M.G.ROAIZ1 BANG'Ai;0RE_ 1* .  . \n\n' \":_. PETITlGNER\n\n{By Sri : we RA.:.ngc5\u20ac:\u00a7&gt;AL}\u00a7\u00a7;if4,_V_Am:2;.\u00a7.e.3je)___.-- 1;  ,\n\n1 Sm pusHt\u00bbw._An~m - %\nWIQKLIMAR .    ~ _\nAssn: ABOUT29 E\ufb01aRS~  \nRIAT BHJALUR vsm.eu:-- AND posr\nDEVANASALLI m,us&lt;._ ~~\nEANGALQREV RURAL no\n\n ..&#039;i&#039;\u00e9.He;%\u00a2MoHm&quot;HaEu&quot;&#039;\n\n. V  sam GOPAL REDDY\n\u00bb _ ~ .,\u00a7.&lt;se2o&#039;:-mgoa\n&#039; V , F&lt;iAT&quot;HQ.Z&#039;57ia$22..\n- ._aELLANDiJia&#039;.,ViLLAGE mo POST\nBAMGAL-Q&#039;\u00bb\u00a7m=:&#039;37\n\n\u00ab V 3 1%-:E&quot;\u00a7:ew &#039;ma ASSURANCE COMPANY no\n\nDW&#039;iS!&lt;3NAL GFHCE i N0.4\u00a31\n.. , * LAKSHNB OOMPLBC.\n&#039; \u00bb &quot;QPP VAN: VILAS HO3PlTAL\n*  BANGALORE 2\nBY MANAGER\n\nms: 1=r-zrrmozz no.3274 or 6&amp;5;  f \n\nEh? THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.Ns&#039;3.32&#039;?4 OF 230?\n\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAEAT BANGALORE W4F.No.32?4 OF 298?\n\n4 SHR! L KESHAV\nMAJOR\n\nszo srfm K.S.LAKSHMlNARAYANA\nGANGAMMA TEMPLE smear\n\nKARIYANNA PALYA\nST THOMAS TOWN F&#039; O\nBANGALORE 86\n\n(By Sri : ma. srzmsvas PATAVARDHAN, Aevoc:AiE~\u00e9=or\u00e9*:a1&#039;;*  _  \n\nSRHQG, SADASHIVMAH, ABVGCATE FOR R2;?__ _\nSR\u00a5.A.K BHAT, AEWOCATE FOR R3; R4 SERVEQ) V\n\nmzswkrr PETiT!0N as men t_._iNBER&#039;ART%CLE&quot;3 .226 Am 22? or-&quot;\n&quot;ms consrmmow o1= mom If-FRAYING Aro. ASE me JUDGMENT AND\nAWARD DT. 18.7.2006 VIBE ANHEXA. 9.ND&#039;=E3;~_;B&#039;e&#039;~MTHE HONBLE MAST\n(sccu-2;, BANGALORE AND TO me.Mss#3&#039;:--?ms \u00a2E:mo:~:V AS AGAINST ms\nPETWIONER. -- _ 3 j   ._ \n\nms wan PETiT{0N\u00a7_C0\ufb02\ufb01R\\irS 0K\u00a3~~.F{.3_R &quot;PRELMINARY HEARING,\n11-as BAY, THE cczuamanet me FfJLLQWlNG:&#039; \n\nP\u00e9\ufb01tibher is United India Insurance\n\nCompany  &#039;v--r\u00e9;~rses\u00abEz-inted by its Manager. Being\n\n - ._g_gg;r&#039;\u00a7fe&quot;i&#039;ve;\ufb01.:by \ufb011e \u00a2dmmvon judgment and award dated 18&quot;&#039;\n\n in M.V.C.No.5649I2003 an the \ufb01te of\n\nthe&#039;   Accidents Claims Tribunaf, Bangalore\n\n petitioner has presented the instant writ\n\nA   oniy in so far as it reiates to \ufb01xing the liability on\n\nIN THE RIG}-I COURT Ci}? KARNATAICA ii?&#039; BANGALORE W*P.}\u00a7a.33?4 CEF 2667\n\n\n\n \n4\n\nclaimants were allowed, \ufb01xing the liability at t?1evr;a,:.t \u00a3-.~..Vt)f\n\n40% on the petitioner --- Insurance Comfiasiy _\n\ndirected the Insurance Company: to pg? siaici\u00e9 &#039;= \n\namount. Thereafter, liberty  \n\n.. Insurance Company to r@&#039;}.._(s&#039;xrgf-.r the   = L&#039;\n\nthe owner ofthe \n\n3. st is the mergm   that, there is\nno liability at  in respect of\nthe goods    Therefrxe,\nwhen   Claims Tribunal ought\nnot to   at the rate of 40% on the\n\nlnsuramge   reserved Iiberty to Insurance\n\n.   racorver the said sum from the\n\n  V Therefore, the impugned judgment and\n\n 1 award  by the Claims Tribunal is contrary to the\n\n law laid down by the Apex Court and this\n\n    in host of judgments. Therefore, petitioner, being\n\n V  _  &#039; gggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.Nn.3274 OF 2067\n\n\n\nIN THE HIGH mun? 0? KARNATAKA &#039;1&#039; BANGALORE w.P.Ne.3m 0:: me?\n5\n\nby the Claims Trimnal, only in so far as fixing the \n\non the Insurance Company at the rate  _\n\nthereafter to recover the same frefn the   &#039;the; u &quot; &#039;V \n\nlorry, 1: constrained to redress  \n\npresenting the instant vwit peti\ufb01er):\n\n4. I have heard.   for\npe\ufb01tioner -- Insurance  counsel for\nrespondents. Aliifiee &quot;and some are\nrepresented;       \n\n5% ~    judgment and award\npassed  &#039;what emerges is that; the\n\nClaim  sfiaeeifically referred at paragraph 24\n\n   learned counsel for Insurance\n\n  mat, the poncy is in mpmt of\n\nj  _theAguodsjcefrier and it is insured only for the purpose of\n\n  but the vehicle has been used far\n\n the pamngys and therefore, there is clear\n\n  &quot;&#039;--mvrit:s&#039;lation en the part of the avmer. It has come in the\n\n\/\u00e9aw\n\nIN THE HIGH CQURT OF KARNATAKA AT&#039; BANGALORE W1&#039;-&#039;.No.32&#039;?\u00bb4 OF 200?\n\n\n\nIN 1112 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.Ne.32&#039;?4 0? 209&#039;:\n6\n\nevidence that the ciaimants were travelling in me&quot; \n\nqumtion in order to visit the temple.  \ncontention of the insurance u &quot;= \ndiscarded. When thare is \nconditions of the ggsscg, it is    %\n\n$1 the ca\ufb01ensation.     at\nparagraph 25 0? its   in View of\nme law said am, the  has to pay\ncompensatiqny    has to\nrecover   of the lorry mating\nNo. through tha reasoning\ngiven iby   &#039;\ufb01\u00e9bunal at paragraph 24, it\n\n    has speci\ufb01ca\ufb02y recorded a\n\n of the oral and documentary\n\n  evid\u00e9\ufb01se Qfter appreciating the stand taken by the\n\n&#039;WH&#039;:  &#039;\u00a7\ufb01\u00a7ur:3fcc\u00e9&quot;&#039;Cmnpany that, there is no iiability an the\n\n &quot;.&#039;1\u00a7;\u00a71&#039;s&#039;;&quot;:;tV\u00a7?\u00a7a&quot;r1?c::e Campany, but in the very next paragraph, the\n\n  &#039;J \u00bb . _   Tribune}, ptacing reliance on the judgment of the\n\n\/4i&lt;--\u00ab\n\nIN THE HIGH CQURT 01*&#039; KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.PNe&#039;3.32&#039;7-vi OF 2907\n\n\n\n    his autherized r\n\nA l;,_ wide for tha iiabif\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF ATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.32&#039;?4 OF 2007\n\n&#039;.1\n\nApex Court and this Court, has issued the direction that,\n\nthe insurance Campany has to pay its \ncompensatioh and than recover the same   \nof the lorry. The said direc\ufb01oh;   ht&quot; \ncannot be accepted nor the   ._\n\nreason that, the Horfbie catsa. - Vvkvh&#039;-._:ai5...N*atid:nal &quot; L&#039;\n\nInsurance Company.   t V&#039; * L. _ 2 Vs; &#039; .  \n\nSubbhayamma and omm  ACJ 721, t\n\nhas held that;  as,  in spite cf\nthe   of the provision\n  to persons other\nman \ufb02xtt-. &quot;goods or his authorized\n&#039; V . A : Atthgh the owner\n\nesentative would now\n\nreprg$entative&quot;\u00bbrgfhain\u00e9 the same.\n\n \n\n. mlicg of insurance in rgect of 3\n\n v\u00e9hicit\u00e9 it was not the intention of the I isiature to\n\n \n\nof the insurer with r to\n\n \n\n---wunuu-n\n\nratuitotm ers who were\n\n\/\u00e9hw\n\niai!\n\n \n\nIN  HEGE COURT 0!&#039; K_=&quot;BL&#039;3AT2%.!Z&quot;; LE&#039;? BAN(3Al,-ORB &#039;3v&#039;;?=!&#039;3f3=33?4 OF 20!}?\n\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT GF K.ARNATAKA3AT QANGALORE W.P.Ne.32&#039;.?4 OF 200?\n\nnei\ufb01xer contemgtated at the time the con\ufb01act cf\ninsurance was entered into nor, any p_remium was paid to\n\n\ufb01ne extent of the______t;eneft of the ln%nceA tee \n\ncateggy of p_e_qQIe.&quot; (emphasis supplied).   &#039;%\n\n7, Further, in one of latest \n\nCourt, in the case of Natiopal in;s.i}rancrev&quot;v*%A:;&#039;c\u00a7{;\u00e9pe;n}}&#039;e .\n\nLimited Vs- Premadevi and others  in (2903) 5\nSupreme com Cases .\u00e9;e4o:\u00a3?   tl\ufb01eh  has held\nthat, &quot; The inevituablee&quot;&quot;ceht;!\u00a31eign;  i\u00a7 that\nDrovisic_;_e;:;\u00a7&quot;&#039;cf&quot;.V.t:fV2pe  Aeriieiri\ufb01v anv statutgy liabiim\non the am at twp his vehagse Eneured for\n\nany Q3 .$@&quot;&#039;er_&quot;iravelii{1g. &quot;in a goods&#039; carriage and the\n\n V&#039; &quot;Ensure? wouid hg\ufb01ewfao iiabif therefor.&quot; (emphasis\n\n View was expressed by me Apex\n\n  % Cozma\ufb01er referring to the three judge bench decision of\n\n&#039; &quot; &quot; &#039;T   Court, as follows:\n\n&quot; 11. Our View gets support from a\nrecent decision of a three-judge bench 01&#039; this\n\nEN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALGRE W.P.}\u00ab\u00e9o.32?4 OF 269&#039;?\n\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT or TAKA AT BANGALORE W-F.No3 &#039;34 OF 200&#039;:\n9\n\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/1761200\/\">New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.\nAshe Rani<\/a> in which it has been held that\nSatpal Sing!) Case was not correctly decided. \n\nThat beigg the msition, the Tribunai and me\nHigh Court we____t__'g not iusfi\ufb01ed in  j Lf   _\n\n_g_h__g insurer had thg Iigbiiitv to  mg  T    ,  \n\ngvggrmd. \" (emphasis suppiiedf\n\nTherefore, if the ratio pf faw   \"\n\nCourt, in the aforesaid knto\nconsideration coupiad   gi~}\u00e9rV: v by the\n\nc:aims T\ufb01bun\u00a7:%   at in judgment and\n\naward, ! am  af that-:4'  View that, the View taken\n\n_ by  Ciaimsg Tri:\u00a7u ha!\ufb02th\u00e9t, the Insurance Company has\n\n v*th5e.L:A.firv\u00a75f;i\"~--i:jstance pay and thereafter recover the\n\n of the vehicie, is contrary to me\n\ntyveil   faid dawn by the Apex Court and hence,\n\n*  3 ciirection ought not to have been issued by me\n\n  Ciai\ufb02xs Tribunal. Hence, same is unsustainabie and is\n\nV  ' . 1' \"  \ufb01zerefore, liable to be set aside at me threshold itself.\n\n \n\n%\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KART-IATAKA AT BANGALORE W'.P.No.32'F'4 OF 2007\n\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.32?4 OF 200?\n30\n\n8. Further, it is significant to note that, in the terms\n\nand conditions of the policy in respect of \" \n\nvehicles, it is stated in a crystal clear mannerv:A'i'i5aTt,A..jtti\u00a2ei'e\"ii  \n\nis no liability on the part of the  \n\nrespect to gratuitous passengers travelling in i\n\nand mat, the liability is only on_v:\ufb011e_c\\;grner'asndV':notFon the\nineurer. Therefore, takiniginto thwe relevant\nfactors into corieiderationf lifarri \u00abopinion that, the\n\nimpugned   by me Claims\n\n.mblm\u00a71reia:a to \ufb01xing \ufb02ue liability\n\non the at the rate of 40% and\n\ntl1ereeftertc\"i=ec:o~1er   from the owner of the lorry\n\n \u00abbearing  cannot be sustained and\n\n'2'iaence:_]ie liable to be set aside.\n\nA  9.   light of the foam and circumstances of\n\n   writ petition filed by petitioner is disposed of\n\naside that portion of me impugned judgment and\n\n 'iiftivrard passed by the Claims Tribunal, relating to only\n\n \n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.32'?4 O? 203'?\n\n\n\nIN THE HIGH CGURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.32?4 OF 200?\nii\n\n\ufb01xing the liability on the Insurance Cempany at 40%\u00bb:.\u00e9md\n\nthereafter rmerving liberty to them to recover_ ;\u20ac':\":e'.j\" \n\nfrom the owner of the lorry. Thus, in.' \n\naforesaid judgments of the Apex  it  \n\nrespect of goods carriage    \nliable and that, the  seam to\ncompensate in respecf \u00e9sfx\ufb01we \n\n10. with    \ufb01led by\npetitioner stan:\u00a7\u00a3sV    'emount stated to\n\nhave been   before\n\nthe Court is agreed   imnedidtety.\n\n .....  \n<\/pre>\n<p>Iudge<\/p>\n<p>mite more cam OFKARNKEAKAAT BANeA1,eRew.pr~:u_32:4 ex: :03:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Karnataka High Court United India Insurance Company &#8230; vs Smt Pushpalatha on 6 November, 2008 Author: N.K.Patil IN THE HIGH COLEKT OF KARNATAKAE AT EANGALORE W.P\u00abNe.32?4 OF 208&#8242;? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATE!) wars mm am on or novmuamz, BEFORE _ L THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PAT\u00a7_L=.Vv % BETWEEN&#8217;. amen um\u00bb. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-69297","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt Pushpalatha on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt Pushpalatha on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-08T16:35:59+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"United India Insurance Company &#8230; vs Smt Pushpalatha on 6 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-08T16:35:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":35,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008\",\"name\":\"United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt Pushpalatha on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-08T16:35:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"United India Insurance Company &#8230; vs Smt Pushpalatha on 6 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt Pushpalatha on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt Pushpalatha on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-08T16:35:59+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"United India Insurance Company &#8230; vs Smt Pushpalatha on 6 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-08T16:35:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008"},"wordCount":35,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008","name":"United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt Pushpalatha on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-08T16:35:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-company-vs-smt-pushpalatha-on-6-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"United India Insurance Company &#8230; vs Smt Pushpalatha on 6 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69297","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=69297"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69297\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}