{"id":70103,"date":"2008-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008"},"modified":"2018-11-21T06:31:42","modified_gmt":"2018-11-21T01:01:42","slug":"new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Shantha on 28 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Shantha on 28 March, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Chidananda Ullal Gowda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH court? or KARRATAKA AT  H\n\nDATED 'nus THE 28?\" DAY on  20iVi8\u00ab'   \"\n\nmm uommn MR. ausT1cE\"c:H:1)ANA1vDA  \n\n\n\n\"l'I.'l'\ufb02'. I.I'l\"I'II'9\ufb02'lI! Ill) _'lI!\ufb02\"I\"Il\"I'n'...:; \nslant lava! nuns nuns: uyvuuvgv .-.aAnIu.v my\n\ngc_gunneous I-'irit ' 93:.-at\" \n\ufb01etgeem '\n\nNEW mam ASS LIRA,is_i\u20ac: :3 (ad \u00abL'1*b_\n\nREP BY THE ::'sEN;0R\"bms1<:-MAL" '\n\n \n\n \n\na.'\n\npanama?\n\nKEMPEGOWDA reorgp, BANK oF;zN:)1A BUILDING\n\nBANGALQRE _ _ V'\n\n1 ..  SMT SH1'1N"I'E.1':Tx, Ivi1'u.5GR\n\n" mo up MuDD;a;L;'N(3A1AH\n\n'   svRi;Hu1\u00a7&EED, MAJOR\n\n' mi:-*3 A1::r"\\'f_!I,~~ run cum' C1I.IA1\\l"l" A\n54'"!  \\.(f \\--V 'I-IIVJ-4.: VJIIJII-III-II-IL\n\n'%  R\/AT no 34, 4TH MAIN\n-- F-RASHANTHNAGAR\n..VIJ_AYNAGAR, BANGALORE-10\n\n\u00a2_ Sm LAXMAMMA,\n AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS\n\n'4 ca\n\n" g 4  GANGAMMA,\nT AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS\n\n(Tl\n\n AI-*'PELLPsN'l'\n\n'vu~_u;\u00ab\/\n\n\n\nTN)\n\n6 RANGAIAH\nAGED \u00a2L%LI'l' C28 YEARS\n\n7 SMT. LAXMAMMA. W_\/O RANGAIAH\nAGED ABOUT 58 YEARS \n35'-D RESPONDENT IS THE WIFE,<\/pre>\n
RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE ‘
\nCPHLDREN OF  RAJU, T.\n<\/p>\n
GT” AND 7T” RESPONDEN’1’S’AR.E PARENTS V
\nOF  UECEASED EXJU,
\n4 8.5 5 RESPONDENTS ARE MINORS, _
\nREPRESENTED BY 35?” RESPQ–NDEN’I’;’<\/p>\n
KUNIGAL TALUK, ‘rL1rp1KLiR..DxsT\u00a3:}1ci’;’~, ” ‘  jv ..
\n    RESPONDENTS
\n(BY SRL. FCIR \u00a3<3_-5  V .\n<\/p>\n
SR1. rim. suN’:’xa..gAJ-Q*u_PrA_ I-‘oR,R1,.’
\nRI. SHRIPAIEV SH:-\\S=TRI._FfJR”R6 AND R7)<\/p>\n
:1*?i\u00a7i:\u00e9{   r\u00a79i’L\u00bb:~it’; Ur\u00e9\ufb01\u00e9k SECTIGN 173(1)  MV ACT
\nAGAINST THE JUDC.-M_Ei*J’I’ ‘AND-AWARD DATED: 27.12.2002 PASSED IN
\nMvc r\u00a2Qf131o;’20c::;’-Agra\u00bb__’ma  – LE 0;? THE MEMBER, M!-.CT-\\.\u00bb’,
\nADDL.JUD(3_E, CC)UR’1″‘v.C)F’ SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE CITY, (SCC-H<\/p>\n
1310.5}, PART L11′ ALL’.”)’.’J_ING ‘!”’14.E.’L’-\u00a3”.I.-.A.!d1\\.”\u00a3 PETITEQN FOR COMPENSATLON.<\/p>\n
 This  laaving Lt-sex: 1′:-;sc1’\\.r:-:1, tiulilillg \u00ab.11; .[‘t_ir<\/p>\n
  ”    preiiouncexpent,  day, VENUGOPALA GOWDA. J.,
\n\u00bb pi’i)j}GuI’lQBQ “\ufb02y: fuilowillgz<\/p>\n
-T’I1’T\\l”&-Il’i’.’NI”I’<\/p>\n
A\ufb01pullm;L was the im-sn.u’e1′ of bus bca1’i11g 1’cgisu’atio11<\/p>\n
‘  A 02 9900. The said bus has met with an accident,<\/p>\n
V “”-311 ‘?.Q5…00!), en a:x_=_n_;11I_. ,1’ wL1i:l;, one Raja @ Raju<\/p>\n
having sustained faiai iiljll\ufb01\ufb01\ufb01, has lat:-31* sui:<.:Luii'u'-ed. His
\n\\\\
\n'\/\/
\n\/, –\n<\/p>\n
 Ht\u00a7EJf_Li  R. Jaiprakaesh, ieaI11er;i Cuuiistil PT ui”<\/p>\n
U)<\/p>\n
legal I’Cpl’t:SBI1LaliVtiS, r\u00a2::spondt:11t 3 In 7 l1cI’Bi11,M_1i:’:1Vd’  a<\/p>\n
claim petition under Stzctiuli 166 of U16  <\/p>\n
AJL, 1988 (i’I.11′ s.s11\u00a2_)1’t.. ‘am Act’) Qeiilxsi;’t.}..1e-4.ap}_Jr:Iia11L’i11 the
\nIvioior Ac<:ide11'L. Ciaim:-3 'FI*ibuna}–'v', Ba31"aiL="<: Cit" "v{f{::<\/p>\n
short Tribulial') clajmitug L(}1V1Ti1Jc11sat;i4J_Ii:?  'f'i'ibunuI
\nconsidc1'i11g the said (31%_diI1I_:  p\u00a2:iiiiQ1,iValo11g  vAvil"l1 a11olhc1'<\/p>\n
clailn petition, \ufb01led by_w_e3;t T1<3_1V.l;'\u00e9__i' fi11j=u1'.t':d\ufb02_' ;1\u00e9i'su11 in the said<\/p>\n
accidczzi, by31L:f;;::;11r11i.;u1%; j';.L1;,:ej.1t~..ai1d scparatt: award,
\nhas awa1'(it;d*f_4i3;1 i'\u00a3tv'0_1,i1*:.'L_'Qi""'\ufb021\u00e9g  of Raja @ Ram,<\/p>\n
Rs.3,6{ii.{{.ei;9sL aLW8"\/'o per a11:uum, I'asl.ening
\nthe 1iabi1i_Ly  "i;1ppella11i.. Being a.gg1'i::ved, (ht:<\/p>\n
appgsiiant   lii\u00e9s \u00e9xppcal.\n<\/p>\n
ap pr:1lLajiL’va:i’i1d S1″iyulhs Rajanna and Sripad V. Shaslzty,<\/p>\n
::2;uf11t:V(i Counsel for the I’ti:5].)0lldt.’:IlLS 3 Lo 7. We also<\/p>\n
g\u00a7\u00e91’Liscd the 1’cc01’d 111aj11La1′:ut:d by the ‘I’1’ibuI1al.<\/p>\n
K-\n<\/p>\n
\/_ .\n<\/p>\n
\u00a3\u00bb<\/p>\n
3. Sri R. Jaip1’akas11, learned Counsel <\/p>\n
*=1P1lella:\u00a21L contended that the vehicle   ‘ <\/p>\n
_\u00a2.;.i_e11L i..: 5;; pubh: ee1viee:v”‘vel’1ie1e; -tile” ‘-_deC’eased<\/p>\n
ar.imii.i.ediy was a  in  aisd “11:-:i1*:e ‘=:l’1e.L<\/p>\n
appellant. was not required  tl1e_’1″ieV.k  ame1eane1’V
\nunder Section 147 :4_’t.he   1. Cetiixsel relied
\nupon the decision of   CuuI’L in the<\/p>\n
case of Fnm\u00a5;$’?-‘mi!-* -7. #131 L;  Asemgneg C99
\nLtd and ‘a\u00a2i2i\u00abm;,  re_15e?f’ted”‘e’in”‘;iiFR 2063 S” 23
\neolxtend  ‘i*i.sk._c5{TVV__Ll1e_* elea.ue1′ wurking in a public<\/p>\n
sewiee \ufb01eliic:1e’eai1:1u!._4be,”held Lu have been covered under<\/p>\n
Lln-:_ policy.  Ceellsel eulxtended that the Tribuxlal<\/p>\n
”  “.. I O 5
\nas-.-if ::\\u\u00a7uVcyuw11il1i}1t) Lin IQ-\ufb01t->\\:!..I’I’ ‘l’|1’l\\)\\;1.|-2Il)1l_\\: Egg.’  .-IJHHU<\/p>\n
\\.ov\u00a54I-La-v 1-1 1.24′: ‘I’<\/p>\n
fa’:\u00a7I_.e11eti””_ii;eV.0’Vi’i\u00e9ib\ufb01iLy on the appeiiallt. Lczarned Goullsei<\/p>\n
euB111it\u00a3edv””\ufb021at., in pursuance of the sun motu order<\/p>\n
.  0y this Cou1’L on 27.06.2006, the appellant, has<\/p>\n
pi9odh.ced the policy issued in respect of the said vehicle<\/p>\n
“eev-“iii” lhe “eried “Wm: 24.12.1991 \u00ab<\/p>\n
H<\/p>\n
.. uuu .. 23.12 -000 1’11;\n<\/p>\n
\\_<\/p>\n
\/\/k.\n<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
  order 4} Eu<\/p>\n
UPI<\/p>\n
the perusal of which, it is clear that the 1isI\u00a7…pii’.;-i’})e1’ee11<\/p>\n
employed as a cleaner is not covered.<\/p>\n
“,1 _ _ __-_- f’o.’~I,, ‘<\/p>\n
4. Per “””\n<\/p>\n
contended that, in the faeL’s._.a1.1Li cii*eui1iela1\u00b01ces of the
\nease, eoilsiderilig the: c0vcI”ii11ctLe 1. issued by Allie appellant<\/p>\n
in respect of the velii_ele_  :que~siiLi1;1_,  the laibuixal is<\/p>\n
,n_1e1il’1et_1 __1f\u00a3;’1&_L_.’i.Jl_,’_, ,.c _.- _ 7’7 -. – – _.e_1.rpell__uI_-I_-e.1ne;.<\/p>\n
\u00aeu isel  def} ._V111i\u00a21i:’tl1e’g \u00e9ippeiiaili having not
\npmdueed l_l1e5′.in\u00a7u1ia1–1ce\u00abpolicy in respect of the vehicle in
\nquesliuii.__bcfu19e=._l.l1e’Tiibeiiel, it is not e11LiLled to produce<\/p>\n
LllC4\u00a7aIIl1.t3 iii  Learned Counsel coniended that<\/p>\n
.V 1 1<\/p>\n
e “27′ ‘PC anu hence the<\/p>\n
policy v–._’:prediuced by the appellant should not be<\/p>\n
i   eciieicleled. Leauied Cuu11sell’u1’Lhe1′ conlelided, by relying<\/p>\n
 the decision of the learned Single Judge passed in<\/p>\n
1 11ii’E:i, Iea\ufb01ieu QJi.amsei=.1uii i’CSpUij1u\u00e9iii.S  \u00ab.1 ‘3<\/p>\n
the liability ofa cleaner wou’d “ei. “i:Eude’1 in..$;}1e’:.:4r_}v+.:i’as.;-ii _<\/p>\n
of two more workman and hence Ll.;e\u00bbap1>eii:11″i&.f}- ii’1’5l1!A’Vt3’I’__iS” . V<\/p>\n
liable Lu pay compe11salio11.\n<\/p>\n
5. ‘{;’unei:.le1’\u00e931-‘ me xiv:-:1 e;)1.sL;1;iiL.;11e a11d.,Ll1e\u00bb51’ecu1’d of<\/p>\n
the case, the points ‘L’uai.’a1i ‘C,_ff;)if 0ij1%’fc:5i1side*”‘{ic11 are:<\/p>\n
1. W1_1e(I1e_1′ U;1e’1ir-Qduczgd’ by the appellant
\n  appeal i:.==4n”!2e”~rer;eived on record and
\ng’con\u00ab.sideI*ed fu. j dee\ufb01ding the appeal?<\/p>\n
2;. “””   t.he’—1’iek””e1′–v3$1 pe1’so11 employed as a
\n* _ .c1ea..:1e_r”\u00abir1’\u00ab.a”pueblic service vehicle is covered
\n‘ _u11z._’;e1~-.4’i;};e=p01i;:\u00a7’?<\/p>\n
ll’<\/p>\n
_3. L”~W1’1e131e1’A’~!i1e.. ~’5i’1’ibLu1a1 is jusmieci ‘I1 fasteiiiir
\n‘ ” th*c..1_iabilit;v on the appellant?<\/p>\n
    No.1:\n<\/p>\n
15.3;  Wit.l”i:’1-.V_:*ega1’Li to the pI’0dl.1Cli0I1 of additional evidence<\/p>\n
‘in (“.l\\<\/p>\n
 in  ., Wm-L, sub 1–…\u00ab.=,-e -:1; \u00ab_\u00a31e.a_\u00bb1e 12.7 of Order 41<\/p>\n
of states ihat, the parliets 1.0 an appeal} shali ii-at ue<\/p>\n
1..\n<\/p>\n
_ __\u20ac:ntil.led to preduce additional evidence, whether oral or<\/p>\n
dueumcmtaly, except Luuler celiain ci1’eu111sl.ances<\/p>\n
em1u=.:ez’a.L_.t_i 11; Clauses (.21). [_aa) and (b) tlzerein. Said<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
provision enables the appellate court to allow  K<\/p>\n
document to be produced, to enable it to -p:1’otf_1ou13dt:e <\/p>\n
rx<\/p>\n
passed by this Court on i27.t’36p.si2i)u6 reads as  S’:<\/p>\n
“Havi11 heard both Sides for Vs~:.11’1ie–V-tjlxie
\n‘. . c 3 ,
\n‘ ‘e feel that it is in t..he~—\ufb01t;neee of t_h.*i:1rr._,\u00a7Mj:r_.1<\/p>\n
W V A _
\ndirect the a13pe\u00a3I:c11__1t–I11stu’;;1__1ee Co. to<\/p>\n
produce the Doiicv ‘ir1’\u00a3t\u00a7c’lst:ton;–.  <\/p>\n
Le Lt.1eL\u00bb–.be  oue week<\/p>\n
fi”‘”1I1 ttiis  _by  e u.*’1’:%e}~—for t..e Ins.
\nCo. $11 J’aip1*e1sas1jx.__
\n  ‘iist-. this’-~r:1\u00e91ttcr week after<\/p>\n
i;1ext_..’_’ ”\n<\/p>\n
 _ V. clear U1id:lt’,Wt.t]!3 said order has been passed by<\/p>\n
 _L1I1de”‘1f cl;_iuse’~” (1)) of sub-Ruie (1) of Rule ‘4’.<\/p>\n
I1′ 1 F1.\n<\/p>\n
—- P1 .-1′ ..3. .\n<\/p>\n
K  15ursua11t to the said order, appellant has produced<\/p>\n
  “relevant policy of the vehicle in question. The said<\/p>\n
order has been passed, in order to enable the Court to<\/p>\n
I I
\npro””ou1’ce the _}ud:._-;me1…. and .,.r sI…,n.;t.s.-mI_1..l _.ause,<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the  01′ P.<\/p>\n
Purushotham Reddy and another :18 M\/s <\/p>\n
L:-.1, reported :11 AIR 2002 so 771, consiqcriizg rtheiiirscopig  <\/p>\n
..x- …1… \ufb01w’  K
\nU1 Oiupi   iiiib-V}’=f’1” “”\n<\/p>\n
of clause: (11) 01′ Ri\ufb02e 2?\n<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
‘”‘….yci.  siigiuid   ‘Li1iv’.}\ufb01i’\u00ab’a’i.i:-{iii as
\ndepriving the HiI\u00a7.;hfCo1–1r’t\u00a7.of power to require
\nany document to bc;_p1’u:ii11;t:d_,”1.1:: witnc:-is to
\nbe exammed 1:9 r:.1f.:.ah1_::.it.to.,pr::~:1ou11<ie judwent,
\nor for a_11y,_o~%11eIif  within the
\nmcaniI1g–_pf ;?:'iau$\u00e9.i'u:i}_ of s_iIb~i':iit'-;*{1} of E1116 2? of
\nO1'dt:1\u00b0::'4 1.} .T.i1eiL poxjawi"-i;i1<_1\u00a2*;:ft::s. in the Court and
\nthat can 1t"t- alone: whic\ufb01": risi hc\u00e9ariiig the appeal. It
\ni-.~.-;"Liie  C3Lli_i1'i; '(:_-1_ut_.i moi of any 0f the
\npar\ufb01cs) Var:-d~.. _\u00bbti1e"c;_cins_cie11ce of the Court feeling
\nini'ii't1i\u00a7.cci i11':s\u00e91i,ii-';iTs;1(3ip1:y ciispussai of 1-is whit}: rule
\nthe cxclvsis\u00e9 of"'t;1r1i$"'1:1oiovcr"<\/p>\n
 ,4.,11f1 :,;cias\u00bb::_ of tilt; "" 'Venkatararnaiah us A.Seetharama<\/p>\n
r.i__1\u20acEq2;."\u00a2:id_g:j:"s:n:;titiA.4::\u00a2b_thers, reported in AIR 1963 sc 1526,<\/p>\n
E-Iu1s;'!…*\u00a2~'.S-u}};1'e1nc Csuu1'l..h..-.2 11-::l.. as .01 t was:<\/p>\n
"…. Apart frolu ifnis, ii. is wail to r6ii1t:.mi:i:'I'-<\/p>\n
AA '  . tliat the appellate court has the power to allow<\/p>\n
 additional evidence not only if it 1'c:qui1'cs such
\nggriggncg "ta \ufb01n,-;a_!;11e it in prone! Inca iudmnent"
\n. '0" 'V–'–'—-"" ."""'\ufb02J"'
\nbut also for "any other subaslz-uitial cause". T1lt.'.l't3
\nmay well be cases where even fhcirugh the C\ufb01lift
\n\ufb01nds that it is able Lo pI'0llUuI1Ct: judgment. on<\/p>\n
the state of the record as it is, and so, it cannot
\n:~;{1'i<\/p>\n
“to enable it to pronounce jL1dgu1e111.'{…__’iL ”
\nconsiders that  the interest r._”.r~i3’__
\nsomething which relnains obscure :-;\u00a3_;ouid ” be
\n\ufb01lled up so that it can pror1_o1;u:1ce it-s”judg11ent’i11  <\/p>\n
a more \ufb01ii-1-:far.;!.o1′;;,\u00bb’ Ill5.:l.1111\u00a2.’.!?4.’= Sue};   will <\/p>\n
one of allowing additional’: fevi’def1ee’~  <\/p>\n
113 .._<\/p>\n
other subsiamiai cauee” Lii1de:* R 27′  . u” of ‘wee V<\/p>\n
Code.\n<\/p>\n
{1′?’} 1!, is easy  L;  soul; -‘eqL;1’e1i1..1;L -1″
\nthe Court to ellable it’to_ p1’o_;1oi;Lr,1ce judgme 1t or
\nfor any o’L’ue1′ suiJ%zsta11i,i:fai’}::au\u00a7 seVielsoi likely to
\narise ordinarily 11111658 vso:j1e–“‘i11l1e.’ lacuna or
\ndefect beeuz.:1e:s;’appa1.’e;1i;..jo;1 :;t1i,exa111i11atio11 of
\nthe e’.’i:”1e1*;::e. ‘I’hat\ufb01 is’ why i:.1″Parsoti1.n Thakur 1!
\nLal !}\u00abIoi’1aV1’~-‘TE-;ak\u00abi_1;f,” 53 “-‘Imi App 254: (AIR 1931
\nPC  ;j_the”  ._ Viiourgcii whiie discussing
\nw’i1e1l;t;’$-‘ a(i:litio1;al evidexice can be admitted
\n;’)bee1.ve(‘\u00e9_:V    ‘<\/p>\n
” ._ “,IL ‘ 1z.1a”y.fi;e””i:\u00a2\u00a7'(1Lii1ed to enable the Court Lo
\npronmmce  judgment, or for any” other<\/p>\n
 ‘:-_’-ubsla11E,ia1 ‘camse, but in either case it. must be<\/p>\n
requires it. This is the plain
\ng1’a3s.;1″aalical reading of the eub–clau-ee. Tlze<\/p>\n
3  T. Ieg_ii’imate occasion for the exercise of this
\n\u00ab disc1fetio1″1 is not wllelievt-.:_;r bei’o1’e the appeal is<\/p>\n
heat-ti a party applies to adduce fresh evidence,
\nbuL*”wl1e11 on examining the evidence as it<\/p>\n
:-stanue, some inherent lacuna or defect becomes<\/p>\n
V\u00bb *  appansllt.”\n<\/p>\n
(18) As the Privy _Council proceeded to point
\nout:\n<\/p>\n
“IL may well be that the defect may be
\npointed out by a party, or that a party may move
\nLhe Court to supply the defect, but the<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
\/\\<\/p>\n
1’equi1\\e111e11l. must be the 1’equi1’en1enL.__e!’ * V.
\nCourt. upon its appreciation of the evidence’  .it*-1 ‘ _
\nstands.”   v  ‘<\/p>\n
Hence, the contention p:t1pLft1e’1:*LiiV by  <\/p>\n
Counsel for the 1’espo11de11Le.:V4’l-gas Lo    of<\/p>\n
by the appellant , nmtu order passed
\nby this Court,   be received on
\n1’eeo1’d as   Lhere is no dispute
\nammpuxe gd:ii\u00a2i1a:\u00a2:iLyiogmuicustody of the said polit:__v_, Lhe<\/p>\n
 p_ _’1\u00a7._g_\ufb01;rd_ing Point ii9o.2 and 3:<\/p>\n
 ‘ I”  E?.i’1″sL:v’peLi_Lio11c:1’i11 the Tribunal has deposed as PW 1<\/p>\n
axiasms that the 211*’ and 3″! petitioners are her<\/p>\n
 1ni1io1.’;ud_:1ds_g11Le1’s, that. her husband was aged about 33<\/p>\n
 ;.;ea%;&=s at the Lune his dean, \\.=vs.-..: eaxnizag …s.5,()Q0<\/p>\n
~ Lo<\/p>\n
‘5’.-\n<\/p>\n
11.!<\/p>\n
‘:2s.6,000\/’– per month and was spending upio Rs.4,0i’1 ; –<\/p>\n
for their 111a:i11i.enanee. Tliere is no dispute that the<\/p>\n
\\\\<\/p>\n
 ..il,is aphblic selvice vehicle, engaged as a couducicr cl’ ui –<\/p>\n
g..-\n<\/p>\n
I—\n<\/p>\n
deceased was a cleaner of the bus, which was”:\u00a7i”-\ufb01iiblic
\nservice vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
8. C111.-l.pl._1′ XI of the Act. covefs L:i.1e”‘sL1hjecL V’i1..:lt3-‘E.l._l.i7\u00a7.:_1VaILi’:’.l’\u00a73\u00a73<\/p>\n
of Ivioior ‘sfeiiicles  “–Tl|;::i1’s1 -3.-;..__*I,.y’  Sectioizsl<\/p>\n
146(1) provides that 1;o._pe1’soiI -use H’ii’1~’Oi.’.”i; vehicle in
\npublic, unless there is a:.’vali\u00a2l’~i11smu11ce which<\/p>\n
complies -with ‘  1*ei–,1uii’ei.\u00a71e1.1i;s”_:ofVV “tile ‘ chapter. Section<\/p>\n
147 1s:sa.1it.ia.Le_s*_Llie’ “–1edj;1ji1eune;1\u00a3s of policies and 1i1uiLs of<\/p>\n
iiahiliiy. Ii.i’~_'”‘;he i.is1..-e1’ slie\ufb02 not be<\/p>\n
(‘.1<\/p>\n
requiied, to covei’A:_ijVi1_le’–.liabiiiLy in Iespeci. U1 ueaili, <\/p>\n
outj.-o.fLa11(l’ ii1’Lhe  of eluploymellt other than a<\/p>\n
l’ ” 1i:\u00a7ti;:ilil\u00a7’ ai’isi11g Liiide1′ the Wo1’kme11’s Clompeiisalioii Act,<\/p>\n
199.3 {em 192:3},<\/p>\n
“L1 iespect of the death of or bodily injury<\/p>\n
\u00a3o”,~..a11_y smell einpioyee eiigaged  driviiig 1.1;… vehicle or if<\/p>\n
 vehicle or in tixalllillillg t.ickeLs of the vehicle or if it is 3.<\/p>\n
“goals caniage goods being carried in the vehicle or to<\/p>\n
cover  ccn*.1′.a=.cLu..1 Ila-.1._Ii1’_,.y. <\/p>\n
-.sn’b1., -.,I..ipi.._ Cs)’-;=..,_<\/p>\n
1…1.:  n,1.1i,,, ,
\n11C-1U E115 IUIIUWSI<\/p>\n
 ag:?::..M.:1e-.1:-L” in cover ul.lis1′ smplsysss,<\/p>\n
\u00b01111~:1erx the prsviso to s. 147(1)(b), it is clear<\/p>\n
“10. The appt>i’ia11L’sV”i31’s’i Sub1i!iS\u00a7i0Il:\u00a7<\/p>\n
was Lhat Shashi Bi11,;’shs_n  “,w’.*~,-‘.~.*.=.  “5-g
\npasscngtzr. The appcilaiiilfs .sub1i1i$si(>n ighal.
\nthe phrases ‘aiiy? .pcrsQr1″‘ aiici  passsiiger”
\nin Cls. (I) and (ii-) \u00a2..l’ sub:-sscLi01i”‘{ib) to S. 147
\n(1) are of wide amplituti-sjis CQ1T6Cf.’v__ (See New
\nI1ir.1i.a. Assu1_\u00b0a11c::VACm1i}>a11_\\g  ‘S;r-gpai’ Sing}: slid
\nothers, 2000 (ii) SQC -.2′.;.’?\u00ab._ However, the
\np1’ovisg;i.05;’s’ii,,’_i1t:. “siii:-s<:_c:i.io1'1 Ciiivcs out an
\ncxcept1'oz_1~–.iir'1"rcspsc1:"'-Inf"one class of persons
\nand pa.sse;::_;1gt:1s,"~ iiaiiasiy, fsliiployccs of the
\niT.1S'J.I"':1d,Ijin'iI:\u00e9\ufb02'l\u20acF E%?0rd.'?L;"V\ufb01 the "person" or
\n"}Jasss1igi:i:'".. \ufb021'\u00a3_f}1!_l],2l(Jy\u00a23t3, than the insurer
\nis"–requi1'ed"Vi;iz1dsr'-iifis statute to cover oniy
\nce1'l3ai11ii ci\ufb01splcyess; As stated earlier, this
\n_would" allow the insured to enter into an
\nbut<\/p>\n
iiial; ~fO1'~. the purposes of 3. 146(1), a policy<\/p>\n
  ~ iiQt_}. be 1'equirt:d to cover liability in
\n'–..Vi'1es}.tt:<;L'*\u00a2;JI' the death arising out of and in the<\/p>\n
lawn.\n<\/p>\n
CO}JJ,’S\u20ac:.– of any smployrnsiit. of t..u\\.\u00ab “arson<\/p>\n
 iiisulhtid unless; first; the liability of the<\/p>\n
AA  Compsiisation Act, 1923 and sccund.<\/p>\n
‘WorkInen’s
\nII’ the<\/p>\n
insunsci arises under the<\/p>\n
_A’.-’employee is engaged in driving the vehicle and<\/p>\n
LI’! llilillsu-I<\/p>\n
I I
\n‘F 1′ uugaguxl 33<\/p>\n
1.1. .l’.I.\u00ab is 9. public ssivics vehicle, is
\nconductor of the vehicle or in examining
\ntickets on the vehicle. if Liic C0l1Ct:’I’11t!d
\nciiiployee is I1t’3il11(’31’a driver nor cund uulor nor
\nexaminer of tickets, the insured cannot claim<\/p>\n
that the *~’*-*-“Wes WOLi1’u1.\u20ac.3GIii6 ui’ds1′<\/p>\n
I I 5.1,;\n<\/p>\n
LrI.l.I PIG’ L11′:\n<\/p>\n
i\\
\nV\/,.\n<\/p>\n
I\u00bb -I- JCILEJ<\/p>\n
, i.lUL:l,C-TlI1g~   uypcuw 1:.\n<\/p>\n
desc1’ipLio11 of “any person” or “paese11ge.1′.’_’_.4′ \u00bb ll’ L.   V
\nthis were permissible, ‘then there wotlldibe   ‘V’
\nneed to make special p1’oviesio11s for empleyejes<\/p>\n
of the insured. The mere mention (if thee’x;voi”d
\n“cleaner” while descrll.-izlg the asea\u00e9izlg siapaelly ” ‘ M
\nof the vehicle does not  that the Cleaner ”
\nwas l11e1efu1’e a passe1;ge1’. Besides Li.:e.ciaiu1″‘.<\/p>\n
of the deceased emgzlpjree was adjludieate.
\nupon by the Wo1’k111e1l’S* .Co111pe1i:sal.ie1i Ceu\ufb02.
\nwhich could have assumed j-~1.n*ied.ieriQn_.JsI.nd
\npassed an o1\ufb02ez’.__(liI’ec:li11:g Vl’t:e;z;V})c:1%1:saLio11 only<\/p>\n
on the basis that’ t’h\u00e9i* ;deCeaseti, was an
\nemployee. VThis Q1’d_e:.’_ca11:lol;”now’ jlre enfowed<\/p>\n
on the basis ;;tl1atj.: the…l”–deee’a3ed was a<\/p>\n
3 ””.I ~ –\n<\/p>\n
yaee-e:1gei’.;,~ V . –A L’ <\/p>\n
‘”IV’l1e_l_1:-.-.111 l’1’a111ed issue No.3 with<\/p>\n
reganl ll Le . llle. \u00abV  the peliliollers to claim<\/p>\n
eu1;1_;pe1s5alio11, ..l_1ew Illtlllll and frum whom, still by me1’el__y<\/p>\n
…\u00a2 . ..” ……-…..I’l.u..l gm.”<\/p>\n
.1 4. .3″\n<\/p>\n
u Laauu<\/p>\n
  to be liable to indelmlify the 1″\n<\/p>\n
1’ee.p4J11\u00a2le11{;\/ owner of Lhe bus. The Tribunal llae not<\/p>\n
  euneidezed the admitted l’acL that Lhe deceased was 2:1<\/p>\n
eleeile1′, lllere was no statutory eovemge for a cleaner and<\/p>\n
“L.  .-r  .1…..’…:….. ..\n<\/p>\n
111 vlcw U1 the use; ‘.lU11 u<\/p>\n
i’ the H”1i’bl’* Si_i”I”\\’.”Iii\ufb01 (leurl. in<\/p>\n
Ramasllray Singh (supra), the appellant <\/p>\n
liable to pay the compellsation \u00a3iIl10UI1LaW.ElI;tl\u00a3ltl’lly lit} T’ <\/p>\n
10. ‘Tile deceased was a elea11e1’and’11ot bei11gV”al’ ti1*3′:\\fe1′ or’<\/p>\n
a conductor’ or exalniner of’ the’.  could
\nnot 111ai11tai11 any  appellalltfalltl hence
\nthe ‘I’rlbunal is got  liability on the
\nrelying   \/2004 disposed of on
\n5.01.’lt)O6  tl1.isWC’,ou1~t has held that, if the
\nt.e1’ms    and unambiguous, despite<\/p>\n
eolleCtio11 of a..leslse1’V’p1’e1niLu11, the liab\ufb02ity of the l1.lSuI'(‘Jl’<\/p>\n
“er the clear terms of the “e'”‘~<\/p>\n
   amount. of premiullt collected. Learned<\/p>\n
Cottzlsellfoil the olaimallts\/1’esponde11t.s 3 to 7 contended<\/p>\n
  that, the appellant has collected Rs.30\/ — as premium<\/p>\n
“tolwa1’ds employee 1 and 2 and hence the decision in the<\/p>\n
‘ease (3’ll.i’;(l   at ‘<\/p>\n
award .ll:tSl.t3I1l1Ig the liability on the appellant, as<\/p>\n
j<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
sustainable. We do not \ufb01nd any Inerit in L11(‘;’.._(_\u00a74().1vVii.i:4.41″‘Vlii.i’t’Ii1,<\/p>\n
considcrilig the fact that then: is no slal.L1l.oi*y..’Vco9s14agc  <\/p>\n
a .21.-mm}. I…!;’.’\u00a3’.’.l\u00a2\u00a3. \u00a33L:.g1.. -JI_..1g- .. – ~.:-.it.i  11…’. 11-31..<\/p>\n
that two additioliai wo1’iux1c;.1_a1*c covc:1*c(i co:1ii’ai’;tu\u00e9iii<\/p>\n
liability and hence liability
\nin the special U0vc1’agt:;”t\u00a7l’   thus the
\nInsurer was lialoic to  per the tcmis of
\nWo1’l.4.1ucz1’s   ”  the -sc.c …1-.1
\nci1’cwnstaiiccs_”    a cicai’ admission that
\nthe   iii public St:l’Vi(Jt3 vehicle and
\nsince tiiclfc is ‘not  cove;-ggc for a clcancif and as<\/p>\n
tlicijc was olsoiio contractual liability l.ll1(it:I’l.a.kt3I1 by the<\/p>\n
 xitiostioiii;~v.Li1cjdccisio11 has no application.<\/p>\n
* 4_ For the l’o1’cgoi11g discussion and reasons, the<\/p>\n
 is allowed. Consequently the judgment. and award<\/p>\n
  a1IJ|;1|u<\/p>\n
1 I1 \u00b0 ‘
\ngauxal. ui\ufb01 -Hliant only, is hablc to be set asuis<\/p>\n
F<\/p>\n
and is acco1’di11g]y hczrc-by set aside. The amount if any<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
\\,<\/p>\n
.4\/\u00ab’<\/p>\n
deposited by the apptillalli. is hereby <\/p>\n
1′(‘)fl.l1ldt’3d to it. In the facts and c’i1cLu11asi1a11(.'(\u00a3:es;of_’Lli{‘: Case, V’ <\/p>\n
-I<\/p>\n
pa-u’Li..,s …;c \u00ab.ilrr.:.r.:p_..i J. L_.__r 1.11-11′ ::*<:.:p\u00a3:'c!,ivc uus1,s.._ _ '  "<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Shantha on 28 March, 2008 Author: Chidananda Ullal Gowda IN THE HIGH court? or KARRATAKA AT H DATED ‘nus THE 28?” DAY on 20iVi8\u00ab’ ” mm uommn MR. ausT1cE”c:H:1)ANA1vDA “l’I.’l’\ufb02’. I.I’l”I’II’9\ufb02’lI! Ill) _’lI!\ufb02”I”Il”I’n’…:; slant lava! nuns nuns: uyvuuvgv .-.aAnIu.v my gc_gunneous I-‘irit ‘ 93:.-at” \ufb01etgeem […]<\/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-70103","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNew India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Shantha on 28 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Shantha on 28 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-21T01:01:42+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Shantha on 28 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-21T01:01:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3294,\"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\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008\",\"name\":\"New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Shantha on 28 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-21T01:01:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Shantha on 28 March, 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":"New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Shantha on 28 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Shantha on 28 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-21T01:01:42+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Shantha on 28 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-21T01:01:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008"},"wordCount":3294,"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\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008","name":"New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Shantha on 28 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-21T01:01:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-smt-shantha-on-28-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Shantha on 28 March, 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\/70103","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=70103"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70103\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}