{"id":80232,"date":"2003-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003"},"modified":"2014-06-21T22:39:18","modified_gmt":"2014-06-21T17:09:18","slug":"united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs A.V.R.Transporters &amp; Exporters on 25 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs A.V.R.Transporters &amp; Exporters on 25 February, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 25\/02\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.VENKATACHALAMOORTHY\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\n\nA.S.No.472 of 1988\n\n1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.\n   Divisional Office No.10400\n   \"Lakshmi Bhavan\"\n   III Floor, 609, Anna Salai\n   Madras 600 006,\n   rep. by its Assistant Manager\n   N.Venkataramani\n2. Chemicals and Plastics India\n   Ltd.,\n   \"Dhun Building\",\n   827, Mount Road,\n   Madras 600 002,\n   rep. by its Assistant Manager\n   N.Venkataramani\n(Cause title accepted as per\norder of Court dated 3.3.88 in\nCMP 5056\/88)                                    .. Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\nA.V.R.Transporters &amp; Exporters\nPrivate Limited,\nNo.59, Bajaj Bhavan,\nNariman Point, Bombay 400 021,\nBranch at \"Chordia Mansion\",\n4th Floor, 739, Mount Road,\nMadras 600 002.                                 .. Respondent\n\n        This appeal suit is filed under S.96 of The Code  of  Civil  Procedure\nagainst the judgment and decree of the VIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras\nmade in O.S.No.1661 of 1985 and dated 31.1.1986.\n\n!For Appellants :  Mr.G.Desappan\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.R.Krishnaswami,\n                Senior Counsel\n                for Mr.C.Ramesh\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The plaintiffs are the appellants herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   This  appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned VIII<br \/>\nAssistant  City  Civil  Judge,  Madras  dismissing  the  suit  filed  by   the<br \/>\nappellants\/plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   The appellants\/plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of a sum of<br \/>\nRs.41,906.85 with subsequent interest at 18% per annum from the date of plaint<br \/>\ntill realisation with the following averments:\n<\/p>\n<p>        The second plaintiff has entrusted a consignment consisting of 9150 MT<br \/>\nof Ethylene Dichloride with the respondent\/defendant  for  carriage  to  their<br \/>\nplant at  Metturdam under LR No.53 dated 10.10.1981.  The said consignment was<br \/>\ninsured with the first pl iff vide  policy  No.104\/83\/1\/5443\/81.    The  lorry<br \/>\nwhich  carried the consignment met with an accident on 11.10.1981 near Mecheri<br \/>\nenroute to Mettur Dam.   On  receipt  of  the  said  information,  the  second<br \/>\nplaintiff  conveyed  the same to the defendant by a letter dated 12.10.1981 to<br \/>\ntake necessary action.  A reply was sent  by  the  defendant  stating  that  a<br \/>\npolice complaint  was  given.    The  Senior  Divisional  Manager of the first<br \/>\nplaintiff firm at Salem arranged for the survey to assess the damage caused to<br \/>\nthe consig nment.  The surveyors M\/s.K.Mariappan  Associates  submitted  their<br \/>\nreport  on  13.11.1981  stating  that  the  entire consignment was leaked out,<br \/>\nevaporated and mixed with  sand  and  mud  resulting  in  total  loss  of  the<br \/>\nconsignment.   A claim was made by the second p laintiff with the defendant by<br \/>\na letter dated 19.7.1982 to compensate the loss sustained by them.    A  claim<br \/>\nletter dated 12.11.1982 was also sent.  But, the defendant neither replied nor<br \/>\nsettled the claim made therein.  On a claim made by the second plain tiff with<br \/>\nthe  first  plaintiff,  the first plaintiff as an insurer settled the claim by<br \/>\npaying a sum of Rs.41,906.85.  By virtue of letter of subrogation and  special<br \/>\npower  of  attorney  executed  by  the  2nd  plaintiff  in  favour  of the 1st<br \/>\nplaintiff, the  rights  of  the  2nd  plaintiff  are  subrogated  to  the  1st<br \/>\nplaintiff.  Hence this suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   The  suit  was  contested  by  the  defendant by filing a written<br \/>\nstatement in the following manner:\n<\/p>\n<p>        The plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts.   Pursuant  to  the<br \/>\nquotation  called  for  by the second plaintiff by letter dated 30.7.1981, the<br \/>\ndefendant gave a quotation.  The terms of the contract are  set  down  in  the<br \/>\nform of  confirmation  letter  g by the 2nd plaintiff dated 21.9.1981.  Clause<br \/>\nNos.3 and 5 of the said terms of confirmation make it very clear the liability<br \/>\nof the defendant carrier.  It is true that the lorry was met with an  accident<br \/>\non 11.10.1981.   The loss to the consignment is cov ered under Clause 3 of the<br \/>\nsaid terms of contract.  The loss has to be  compensated  from  the  insurance<br \/>\ncompany.   The  second  plaintiff  can  well  recover the money from the first<br \/>\nplaintiff insurance  company.    The  liability  of  the  defendant  has  been<br \/>\nrestricte  d only to the loss or damage occasioned to the vehicle employed and<br \/>\nthird party risks.  The report of the Surveyor would not bind  the  defendant.<br \/>\nThe defendant  was  not  given  any  notice  of  any survey.  While the second<br \/>\nplaintiff is not entitled to recover any money,  the  first  plaintiff  cannot<br \/>\nclaim the  money  on  the ground of non delivery of consignment.  The loss has<br \/>\noccurred due to the accident which is beyond the  control  of  the  defendant.<br \/>\nHence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   The  trial  Court framed the necessary issues, tried the suit and<br \/>\ndismissed the same.  Being aggrieved by the judgment of the lower  Court,  the<br \/>\nplaintiffs have come forward with the instant appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   The  plaintiffs  laid  the  civil action for recovery of a sum of<br \/>\nRs.41,906.85 with subsequent  interest.    Admittedly,  the  second  plaintiff<br \/>\nentrusted  with  the defendant carrier a consignment consisting of 9150 Metric<br \/>\nTonne of Ethylene Dichloride for c  age  to  their  plant  at  Mettur  Dam  on<br \/>\n10.10.1981.   The  lorry loaded with the said consignment met with an accident<br \/>\non 11.10.1981 at 11.30 A.M.  near Mecheri enroute to Mettur Dam.   On  receipt<br \/>\nof the information about the accident, the second plaintiff conve yed the same<br \/>\nto the defendant carrier by a letter dated 12.10.1981 to take necessary action<br \/>\nin that  regard.   Consequent upon the same, the defendant gave a complaint to<br \/>\nthe police and instructed the lorry owner to contact the Plant Manager of  the<br \/>\nsecond plaintiff  for  conducting  an  insurance  survey.   Accordingly at the<br \/>\ninstance of the first plaintiff with  whom  the  consignment  was  insured,  a<br \/>\nsurvey was conducted to assess the damage caused to the consignment due to the<br \/>\naccident.   The survey report reveale d that the entire consignment was leaked<br \/>\nout, evaporated and mixed with the sand and mud resulting in total loss of the<br \/>\nsame.  Under such circumstances, the second plaintiff made a  claim  with  the<br \/>\ndefendant  by  a  letter  dated 19.7.1982 to compensate the lo ss sustained by<br \/>\nthem and again sent another claim letter dated 12.11.1982.  But, the claim was<br \/>\nnot settled by the defendant.  In such  circumstances,  the  second  plaintiff<br \/>\nmade its claim before the first plaintiff Insurance Company, which settled the<br \/>\nsame by  paying a sum of Rs.41,906.85 being the value of the consignment.  The<br \/>\nsecond plaintiff subrogated its rights to the first plaintiff to  recover  the<br \/>\nsame  from  the  defendant  by  a  letter  of subrogation and special power of<br \/>\nattorney executed by the second plaintiff in favour of the first plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  While the admitted facts are so,  the  first  plaintiff  Insurance<br \/>\nCompany  has  made the instant claim against the defendant, wherein the second<br \/>\nplaintiff was also added as a  co-plaintiff.    The  defendant  interalia  has<br \/>\nvigorously  contested the suit sta that no negligence can be attributed to the<br \/>\ndefendant for the accident occurred; that the defendant was not liable to meet<br \/>\nthe claim of the plaintiffs, in view of  the  special  contract  entered  into<br \/>\nbetween  the parties before the transportation of the con signment from Madras<br \/>\nto Mettur Dam, wherein the second plaintiff agreed to  make  arrangements  for<br \/>\nthe  transit  risk  for  the  products, and hence, the second plaintiff should<br \/>\nrecover the moneys from the insurer namely the first plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants\/plaintiffs  would<br \/>\nsubmit  that  the  lower  Court  was not correct in rejecting the claim of the<br \/>\nplaintiffs; that it is pertinent to note that the accident has occurred due to<br \/>\nthe negligence on the part he defendant only; that the  defendants  themselves<br \/>\ngave the damage certificate accepting the damage caused to the consignment and<br \/>\nits  value  therefor;  that  it  was  not open to them to go back on their own<br \/>\ndamage certificate and object to the survey report w  hich  was  only  in  the<br \/>\nnature of confirmation of the assessment already made; that it has to be noted<br \/>\nthat  the  survey  was  conducted at the instance of the defendant, and it was<br \/>\nnever open to the defendant to contend that they were not bound  by  the  said<br \/>\nsur vey report; that the negligence was always presumed in any accident unless<br \/>\nit  had  been  rebutted  by  those who pleaded that there was no negligence on<br \/>\ntheir part; that the lower Court erred  in  finding  the  Clause  (3)  of  the<br \/>\nagreement  as  a  special  contract b etween the parties; that the said clause<br \/>\nreferred only to insurance, and it never referred to restriction of  claim  on<br \/>\nthe part of the first plaintiff; that it is pertinent to note that there could<br \/>\nnot be any special contract for giving up any compensatio n due to negligence;<br \/>\nthat even if Clause (3) of the contract was to be taken as a special contract,<br \/>\nthe  same  was  hit  by  S.23 of the Contract Act; and hence, the judgment and<br \/>\ndecree of the lower Court cannot be sustained, and they are liable to  be  set<br \/>\nasi de and the suit be decreed as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.   Countering  to  the above contentions, the learned Senior Counsel<br \/>\nMr.R.Krishnaswami, appearing for the respondent\/defendant would  contend  that<br \/>\nin  view  of  the special contract entered into between the parties before the<br \/>\ntransportation of the consign , the respondent was not liable to meet the suit<br \/>\nclaim;  that  the  lower  Court  only  on  proper  appreciation  of  oral  and<br \/>\ndocumentary  evidence has found that the defendant was not liable to make good<br \/>\nthe loss, and hence, the judgment and decree of the trial C ourt have  got  to<br \/>\nbe sustained and the appeal be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  After careful consideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny<br \/>\nof the evidence both oral and documentary, the Court is of the considered view<br \/>\nthat there is no substance in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.   The  defendant in its written statement has specifically pleaded<br \/>\nthe special contract that was entered into between the parties and has  marked<br \/>\nthe  same  as Ex.B2 dated 21.9.1981, wherein the terms of the special contract<br \/>\nwere set out.  Clause (3) he said contract reads as follows:<br \/>\n&#8220;3.  INSURANCE:\n<\/p>\n<p>Chemplast will make arrangements for transit risk for the product only.    You<br \/>\nwill  be fully responsible for any loss, damage, etc., to your chassis, tanker<br \/>\nand crew, it will be your responsibility to insure chassis, tanker,  crew  and<br \/>\nalso cover any third p arty risks.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>A  very  reading  of  the  above  clause  would clearly reveal that the second<br \/>\nplaintiff has agreed that they would make arrangements for  the  transit  risk<br \/>\nfor the products  only  viz.    the consignment in question.  It has also been<br \/>\nfurther agreed under the said cl ause that the defendant would be  responsible<br \/>\nfor any loss, damage, etc., for its chassis, tanker and crew and also to cover<br \/>\nany  third party risks, which would clearly indicate that the liability of the<br \/>\ndefendant was limited to that extent only, and it ca nnot be extended further.<br \/>\nIn view of the specific terms of the agreement wherein  the  second  plaintiff<br \/>\nthemselves  undertook the transit risk for the consignment, they cannot now be<br \/>\npermitted to say that the defendant was liable to make good the loss.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.  Needless to say that the second plaintiff cannot execute a letter<br \/>\nof subrogation in favour of the first plaintiff Insurance Company  in  respect<br \/>\nof certain rights which were not available for them under the contract entered<br \/>\ninto  between  the  partie  It  was  contended  by the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\nappellants that there was no special contract between the parties; that  Ex.B2<br \/>\nwas not a concluded contract, but it was only a letter addressed by the second<br \/>\nplaintiff  to  the  defendant,  which  was  not  accepte  d  by  the defendant<br \/>\nsubsequently, and thus, the terms found under Ex.B2 would not  be  binding  on<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs.    This  contention  cannot  be  countenanced for two reasons.<br \/>\nFirstly, in the grounds of appeal, the appellants have attacked  Clause  3  of<br \/>\nthe  speci al contract referred to above and not the contract itself, and even<br \/>\nafter the terms of the special  contract  were  specifically  averred  in  the<br \/>\nwritten  statement,  they  were  not  denied  by  the  plaintiffs  by filing a<br \/>\nrejoinder.  Secondly, the special contract under Ex.B2 was  confirmed  by  the<br \/>\nsecond  plaintiff  under  Exs.B3  and  B4  communications  dated 14.7.1982 and<br \/>\n19.7.12982 respectively.  Hence, the plaintiffs cannot  now  be  permitted  to<br \/>\nraise  any  plea  stating  that there was no special contract between the part<br \/>\nies.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  Apart from all the above, the defendant was  not  put  on  notice<br \/>\nwhen the  survey  was  made at the instance of the first plaintiff.  P.W.1 who<br \/>\nwas examined on the side of the first plaintiff,  has  categorically  admitted<br \/>\nthat  as per the provisions of I ance Law, all the parties concerned should be<br \/>\nserved with notice as to the survey to be made, and in the  instant  case,  no<br \/>\nnotice  was  served  on the defendant, and he could not tender any explanation<br \/>\nwhy the defendant carrier was not served with the necess ary notice before the<br \/>\nsurvey was made.  For all the reasons  stated  above,  the  plaintiffs  cannot<br \/>\nmaintain  a  claim  against  the  defendant  on  the  basis of Ex.A9 letter of<br \/>\nsubrogation.  Hence, the lower Court was perfectly correct in  dismissing  the<br \/>\nsuit.  The Court is unable to see anything to interfere in the judgment of the<br \/>\nCourt below.\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.   In  the  result,  this  appeal  suit is dismissed confirming the<br \/>\njudgment and decree of the lower Court.   The  parties  will  bear  their  own<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  yes<br \/>\nInternet:  yes<br \/>\nTo:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Registrar<br \/>\nCity Civil Court<br \/>\nMadras\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Record Keeper<br \/>\nV.R.Section<br \/>\nHigh Court, Madras<br \/>\nnsv\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs A.V.R.Transporters &amp; Exporters on 25 February, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25\/02\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.VENKATACHALAMOORTHY AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM A.S.No.472 of 1988 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office No.10400 &#8220;Lakshmi Bhavan&#8221; III Floor, 609, Anna Salai [&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-80232","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>United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs A.V.R.Transporters &amp; Exporters on 25 February, 2003 - 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-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs A.V.R.Transporters &amp; Exporters on 25 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-21T17:09:18+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=\"11 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-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs A.V.R.Transporters &amp; Exporters on 25 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-21T17:09:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2055,\"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\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003\",\"name\":\"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs A.V.R.Transporters &amp; Exporters on 25 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-21T17:09:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs A.V.R.Transporters &amp; Exporters on 25 February, 2003\"}]},{\"@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 Co. Ltd vs A.V.R.Transporters &amp; Exporters on 25 February, 2003 - 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-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs A.V.R.Transporters &amp; Exporters on 25 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-21T17:09:18+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs A.V.R.Transporters &amp; Exporters on 25 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-21T17:09:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003"},"wordCount":2055,"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\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003","name":"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs A.V.R.Transporters &amp; Exporters on 25 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-21T17:09:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-vs-a-v-r-transporters-exporters-on-25-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs A.V.R.Transporters &amp; Exporters on 25 February, 2003"}]},{"@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\/80232","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=80232"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80232\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}