{"id":6973,"date":"2007-11-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007"},"modified":"2016-11-03T01:33:33","modified_gmt":"2016-11-02T20:03:33","slug":"the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"The United India Insurance &#8230; vs P.Ravi .. 1St on 21 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The United India Insurance &#8230; vs P.Ravi .. 1St on 21 November, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 21\/11\/2007\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\n\nC.M.A.(MD) No.1317 of 2007\nand\nM.P(MD)No.2 of 2007\n\n\nThe United India Insurance Company Ltd.,\nG.S.T.Road,\nThirunagar,\nMadurai South Taluk,\nMadurai District.\t\t.. \tAppellant\/\n\t\t\t\t\t2nd Respondent\nVs\n\n\n1.P.Ravi\t  \t\t.. \t1st Respondent\n\t\t\t\t\t\/Petitioner\n\n\n2.M.Sankaralingam\t\t.. \t2nd Respondent\n\t\t\t\t\t\/1st Respondent\n\nPrayer\n\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the\njudgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.703 of 2002 dated 13.02.2007 on the\nfile of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum III Additional Sub Court,\nMadurai.\n\n\n!For Appellant\t  \t...\tMr.C.Jawahar Ravindran\n\n\n^For Respondents \t...\tMr.K.Ananda Rajan for R.1\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree passed in<br \/>\nM.C.O.P.No.703 of 2002 dated 13.02.2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal cum III Additional Sub Court, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is relating to the<br \/>\nquantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 13.02.2007,<br \/>\nto a tune of Rs.8,61,800\/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Sixty One Thousand and Eight<br \/>\nHundred only) on the following sub-heads:<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n\t(i) For Loss of Income\t\t- Rs.7,71,800.00\n\t(ii)For Transport Charges\t- Rs.  10,000.00\n\t(iii) For Nutritious Food   \t- Rs.   5,000.00\n\t(iv) For Future Medical\n\t\t   Expenses\t        - Rs.  20,000.00\n\t(v) For Pain and Sufferings \t- Rs.  25,000.00\n\t(vi) For Permanent Disability\t-Rs.  30,000.00\n\t\t\t\t\t----------------\n\t\t\t\tTotal   -Rs.8,61,800.00\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t----------------\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t3. The nitty-gritty of the grounds of appeal as stood exposited from the<br \/>\ngrounds of appeal could be portrayed thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Tribunal erroneously adopted the multiplier method and accordingly,<br \/>\nawarded the compensation of Rs.8,61,800\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal arrived at<br \/>\nthe just compensation?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. A re&#8217;sume&#8217; of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal<br \/>\nof this appeal would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe petitioner at the relevant time of the accident was working as driver<br \/>\nin Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation.  However, he sustained injury not<br \/>\nwhile he was discharging his duty as the driver, but as the pillion rider on a<br \/>\ntwo wheeler.  When a Tata Sumo car dashed as against him and made him to sustain<br \/>\ninjuries.  Thereupon, it appears, he filed M.C.O.P for claiming compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant, Insurance Company is that the Tribunal ought not to have applied the<br \/>\nmultiplier system, when there is nothing on record to show that the claimant was<br \/>\nmade to live a vegetative life or idle life.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The learned Counsel for the appellant would place reliance on the order<br \/>\nof this Court dated 30.04.2003 in W.P.No.5576 of 2003.  The operative portion of<br \/>\nit, is extracted hereunder for ready reference:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;3. Without going into the merits of the claims of the petitioner, the<br \/>\nfirst respondent is directed to consider the said representation in the light of<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.746 dated 2.7.1981 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four<br \/>\nweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>He would develop his argument that this Court directed the Transport Corporation<br \/>\nto consider the claimant for some other job.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. During arguments, the learned Counsel for the claimant himself produced<br \/>\na copy of the proceedings dated 28.06.2003 issued by the Transport Corporation<br \/>\nwhich would demonstrate that the Transport Corporation assured the claimant that<br \/>\nin compliance with the order of this Court, he would be considered for some<br \/>\nother job in seriatim as they are maintaining a list of persons who have to be<br \/>\naccommodated in Government service by way of alternative employment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The learned Counsel for the claimant would air the grievance of the<br \/>\nclaimant that for the past four years, the Transport Corporation is simply<br \/>\nkeeping quiet without providing any job and as such, he should be treated as the<br \/>\none who has been made to lead a vegetative life or idle life and that too in<br \/>\nview of the Transport Corporation actually terminated him from the job on the<br \/>\nground that he was unfit to function as a driver.  There is no dispute relating<br \/>\nto the fact that the Transport Corporation having terminated the service of the<br \/>\nclaimant as a driver on the ground of disability sustained by him in the<br \/>\naforesaid accident.  However, they promised him that a job would be given in<br \/>\nseriatim depending upon the educational qualifications and other eligibilities<br \/>\nand experiences.  As such, it is clear that the very thing that the petitioner<br \/>\nhas opted to continue in the job and also the fact that the petitioner even now<br \/>\nis ready to get alternative employment from the Transport Corporation would<br \/>\nspeak by itself that he has not been made to lead a vegetative or idle life.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. At this juncture, this Court could refer to the disability<br \/>\ncertificate, Ex.A.16, marked before the Tribunal.  Accordingly, P.W.4, the<br \/>\nDoctor was examined on the side of the claimant who would opine  that the<br \/>\nclaimant sustained 46% of permanent disability.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The learned Counsel for the appellant would correctly argue that 46%<br \/>\npermanent disability arrived at by the Doctor cannot be taken as the criterion<br \/>\nfor awarding the compensation, because the Doctor took into account the old<br \/>\nfracture in the left ankle also which the claimant sustained under different<br \/>\ncircumstances and not in the accident referred to supra.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The perusal of the Accident Register would buttress and fortify the<br \/>\nargument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the Accident Register<br \/>\ndated 06.02.2001, which emerged soon after the accident relating to this case,<br \/>\nthere was no reference to any injury sustained by him on the left leg.  In the<br \/>\ntyped set of papers, at page No.17, it is admitted by both sides that there is<br \/>\nreference to the sole fracture sustained by the claimant in his  talus left<br \/>\nankle in addition to the fracture of both  bones in right leg 1\/3 and right<br \/>\nankle which he sustained in the accident referred to herein.  Putting together<br \/>\nthe disabilities found in the right and left leg, the Doctor arrived at 46%<br \/>\npermanent disability.  But, ignoring the old fracture sustained by the claimant<br \/>\nin connection with some other accident, if the matter is viewed, at the most by<br \/>\nany liberal standard,  the permanent disability could be quantified at only 35%<br \/>\nand that too taking a cue from the I Schedule Part II, Serial No.19 to the<br \/>\nWorkmen&#8217;s Compensation Act that even amputation below the knee is quantified at<br \/>\n60% under the Workmen&#8217;s Compensation Act.  Here, there is a fracture in the<br \/>\nankle and hence, 35% permanent disability could be taken as the appropriate<br \/>\nfactor for assessing the compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. In view of the discussion supra and also the circumstances highlighted<br \/>\nabove, it is crystal clear that multiplier method cannot be applied.  It is just<br \/>\nand necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/665053\/\">United India Insurance<br \/>\nCo. Ltd., Tiruchengode v. Veluchamy and<\/a> another reported in 2005(1)CTC-38.  An<br \/>\nexcerpt from it would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The following principles emerge from the above discussion:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) In all case of injury or permanent disablement &#8220;multiplier method&#8221;<br \/>\ncannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning<br \/>\npower.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) It depends upon various factors such as nature and extend of<br \/>\ndisablement, avocation of the injured and whether it would affect his employment<br \/>\nor earning power etc., and if so, to what extent?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c)(1) If there is categorical evidence that because of injury and<br \/>\nconsequential disability, the injured lost his employment or avocation<br \/>\ncompletely and has to be idle till the rest of his life, in that event loss of<br \/>\nincome or earning may be ascertained by applying &#8220;multiplier method&#8221; as provided<br \/>\nunder Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.<br \/>\n\t(2) Even, if so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of fatal<br \/>\ncases as provided under the Schedule.  If there is no amputation and if there is<br \/>\nevidence to show that there is likelihood of reduction or improvement in future<br \/>\nyears, lesser period may be adopted for ascertainment of loss of income.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of<br \/>\nemployment being attended by the injured at the time of accident&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. A mere perusal of the aforesaid decision would clearly show that the<br \/>\nonly in cases where a person is made to lead a vegetative or idle life, the<br \/>\nquestion of applying the multiplier system would arise.  No doubt, in this case,<br \/>\nthe claimant driver was terminated from service.  However, as per the direction<br \/>\nof this Court, the Transport Corporation also agreed as found set out supra, to<br \/>\ngive alternative employment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. Hence, in such a case, the claimant would be estopped from contending<br \/>\nthat he is totally unfit for any job and that he was incapacitated from earning<br \/>\nany income.  Taking into consideration the age of the driver, i.e, 31 years, at<br \/>\nthe time of the accident, for each percentage of permanent disability,<br \/>\nRs.2,000\/- could be awarded and accordingly, if worked out, Rs.70,000\/- (Rupees<br \/>\nSeventy Thousand only) could be awarded as compensation under the head<br \/>\n&#8216;permanent disability&#8217;.  Towards pain and sufferings, the compensation could be<br \/>\nRs.30,000\/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) and under the head, transport<br \/>\nexpenses, a sum of Rs.10,000\/- as awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.  For<br \/>\nextra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000\/- which in my opinion,<br \/>\ncould be enhanced to Rs.10,000\/- taking into account the nature of the injury<br \/>\nsustained by the claimant.  The Tribunal even without appropriate medical bills,<br \/>\nawarded a sum of Rs.20,000\/- which requires no interference in view of the<br \/>\ninjury sustained by him.  Towards loss of income, no amount was awarded.  Even<br \/>\nassuming that he might have been paid salary during such period of treatment and<br \/>\nduring the convalescence period, it is obvious that but for the accident, he<br \/>\nmight have encashed the leave and hence, a sum of Rs.10,000\/- could be awarded<br \/>\ncutting across technicalities.  As such, the following formula emerges:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) Towards Permanent Disability &#8211; Rs.70,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) Towards Pain and Sufferings &#8211; Rs.30,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) Transport Expenses\t &#8211; Rs.10,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv)Extra Nourishment\t\t &#8211; Rs.10,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(v) Medical Expenses\t\t &#8211; Rs.20,000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vi) Loss of Income \t\t &#8211; Rs.10.000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t-Rs.1,50.000.00\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and<br \/>\nthe compensation arrived  by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.1,50,000\/- (Rupees<br \/>\nOne Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) and the interest at the rate of 7.5% awarded<br \/>\nby the Tribunal remains unaltered.   Consequently, connected M.P.(MD)No.2 of<br \/>\n2007  is also closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum<br \/>\nIII Additional Sub Court,<br \/>\nMadurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The United India Insurance &#8230; vs P.Ravi .. 1St on 21 November, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21\/11\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD) No.1317 of 2007 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2007 The United India Insurance Company Ltd., G.S.T.Road, Thirunagar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District. .. Appellant\/ [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The United India Insurance ... vs P.Ravi .. 1St on 21 November, 2007 - 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\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The United India Insurance ... vs P.Ravi .. 1St on 21 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-02T20:03:33+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=\"9 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-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The United India Insurance &#8230; vs P.Ravi .. 1St on 21 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-02T20:03:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1617,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007\",\"name\":\"The United India Insurance ... vs P.Ravi .. 1St on 21 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-02T20:03:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The United India Insurance &#8230; vs P.Ravi .. 1St on 21 November, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"The United India Insurance ... vs P.Ravi .. 1St on 21 November, 2007 - 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\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The United India Insurance ... vs P.Ravi .. 1St on 21 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-02T20:03:33+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The United India Insurance &#8230; vs P.Ravi .. 1St on 21 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-02T20:03:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007"},"wordCount":1617,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007","name":"The United India Insurance ... vs P.Ravi .. 1St on 21 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-02T20:03:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-united-india-insurance-vs-p-ravi-1st-on-21-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The United India Insurance &#8230; vs P.Ravi .. 1St on 21 November, 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:\/\/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\/6973","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=6973"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6973\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}