{"id":88022,"date":"2003-07-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003"},"modified":"2016-01-17T14:44:36","modified_gmt":"2016-01-17T09:14:36","slug":"ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003","title":{"rendered":"Ramashray Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors on 22 July, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ramashray Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors on 22 July, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: Ruma Pal<\/div>\n
Bench: Ruma Pal, B.N.Srikrishna.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5147 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nRamashray Singh\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVs.\n\nNew India  Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors.\t\t\n\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/07\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nRuma Pal & B.N.Srikrishna.\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20600 Of 2002)<\/p>\n
RUMA PAL, J<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant is the owner of a vehicle, described as a <\/p>\n
“trekker”, in which passengers are carried for hire.  He <\/p>\n
employed Shashi Bhushan Singh as a “khalasi” of the vehicle.  <\/p>\n
On 21.10.1998 the vehicle met with an accident as a result of <\/p>\n
which Shashi Bhushan Singh died.  The legal heirs of the <\/p>\n
deceased employee filed a claim in the Workmen’s <\/p>\n
Compensation Court against the appellant, as the owner of the <\/p>\n
vehicle, and against the respondent insurance company.  The <\/p>\n
Workmen’s Compensation Court held that the vehicle had been <\/p>\n
comprehensively insured with the respondent and that since the <\/p>\n
accident had occurred during the period of insurance, the <\/p>\n
insurance company was liable to pay the compensation on <\/p>\n
account of the death of the employee.  The respondent was, <\/p>\n
therefore,  directed to deposit the compensation determined <\/p>\n
under the provisions of The Workmen’s Compensation Act, <\/p>\n
1923.\n<\/p>\n
The decision  was challenged by the respondent before <\/p>\n
the High Court at Patna under Article 226.  The High Court <\/p>\n
allowed  the writ petition.  It held that in the absence of any <\/p>\n
special contract between the appellant and the respondent , the <\/p>\n
rights of the parties were governed by statute which did not <\/p>\n
require the respondent to cover liability in respect of an <\/p>\n
accident to a khalasi. The statute in question is the Motor <\/p>\n
Vehicles Act, 1988 (referred to hereinafter as the Act).<\/p>\n
 \tThe appellant has impugned the decision of the High <\/p>\n
Court before this Court, primarily on the ground that the High <\/p>\n
Court had misconstrued the provisions of the Act and in <\/p>\n
particular  clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 147.  It was <\/p>\n
contended that the insurance policy expressly covered the <\/p>\n
death or injury to the khalasi.    Our attention was drawn to the <\/p>\n
insurance certificate where under the heading “Particulars of <\/p>\n
the vehicle insured” there is a column which refers to “Seating <\/p>\n
capacity including driver and cleaner”.  Under this sub-head the <\/p>\n
figure “13+ 1” has been inserted.  A cleaner, as accepted by <\/p>\n
both parties before us, would include a khalasi.  The appellant <\/p>\n
submitted that he had paid premium on the basis of 13+1 to <\/p>\n
cover the liability in question.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent has refuted the claim that any additional <\/p>\n
premium was paid to cover the risk pertaining to a khalasi.  It is <\/p>\n
contended that in terms of the insurance policy, as also under <\/p>\n
the provisions of Section 147 (1) (b), no employee of the <\/p>\n
insured apart from the driver  was  covered.  <\/p>\n
Chapter XI of the Act covers the subject ‘Insurance of <\/p>\n
Motor Vehicles Against Third Party Risks’ under Section 146(1) <\/p>\n
of which no person shall use a motor vehicle in public unless <\/p>\n
there is a valid policy of insurance which complies with the <\/p>\n
requirements of the Chapter. The mandatory requirements of <\/p>\n
such insurance policy have been provided in Section 147.<\/p>\n
The relevant extract of Section 147 is reproduced with <\/p>\n
emphasis on the words on which the appellant’s case rests :<\/p>\n
\t“Section 147: Requirements of policies <\/p>\n
and limits of liability. \u2013 (1) In order to comply <\/p>\n
with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy <\/p>\n
of insurance must be a policy which \u2013<\/p>\n
(a) xxx\txxx\t\txxx\txxx\t\txxx<\/p>\n
(b) insures the person or classes of persons <\/p>\n
specified in the policy to the extent specified in <\/p>\n
sub-section (2) \u2013 <\/p>\n
(i)\tagainst any liability which may be <\/p>\n
incurred by him in respect of the death of <\/p>\n
or bodily injury to any person or damage <\/p>\n
to any property of a third party caused by <\/p>\n
or arising out of the use of the vehicle in <\/p>\n
a public place;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tagainst the death of or bodily injury to <\/p>\n
any passenger of a public service <\/p>\n
vehicle caused by or arising out of the <\/p>\n
use of the vehicle in a public place:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that a policy shall not be required \u2013<\/p>\n
(i)\tto cover liability in respect of the death, <\/p>\n
arising out of and in the course of his <\/p>\n
employment, of the employee of a <\/p>\n
person insured by the policy or in respect <\/p>\n
of bodily injury sustained by such an <\/p>\n
employee arising out of and in the course <\/p>\n
of his employment other than a liability <\/p>\n
arising under the Workmen’s <\/p>\n
Compensation Act, 1923 ( 8 of 1923), in <\/p>\n
respect of the death of, or bodily injury <\/p>\n
to, any such employee-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tengaged in driving the vehicle, or<\/p>\n
(b) if it is a public service vehicle, <\/p>\n
engaged as a conductor of the vehicle <\/p>\n
or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or<\/p>\n
(b)\tIf it is a goods carriage, being carried <\/p>\n
in the vehicle, or<\/p>\n
(ii)\tto cover any contractual liability”.<\/p>\n
 \tOver and above the risks which are covered by this <\/p>\n
statutory provision, parties may of course enter into a contract <\/p>\n
by which the insurer agrees to cover additional risks.  It is not <\/p>\n
the appellant’s case that apart from the policy of insurance <\/p>\n
there was any contract between the appellant and the <\/p>\n
insurance company.    The policy has a clause which defines <\/p>\n
the limits of liability in respect of death or bodily injury to any <\/p>\n
person caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle <\/p>\n
under  Section II(i)  of  the  terms  and  conditions of the  <\/p>\n
Policy.   In  proviso (b)  to  Section  II (1), it has been <\/p>\n
expressly stated that “Except so far as is necessary to meet <\/p>\n
the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Company <\/p>\n
shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury to any <\/p>\n
person in the employment of the insured arising out of and in <\/p>\n
the course of such employment”.\n<\/p>\n
 A copy of the original policy was produced by the <\/p>\n
respondents in the course of arguments.  The appellant has <\/p>\n
objected to the production of the policy at this stage.  We <\/p>\n
would have understood and upheld the submission had the <\/p>\n
appellant not based his claim on the policy.  Indeed, in the <\/p>\n
absence of the policy, we could not have entertained the <\/p>\n
appellant’s claim at all.  [See:  Dr. T.V. Jose V. Chacko P.M. <\/p>\n
alias Thankachan 2001 (8) SCC 748.]  <\/p>\n
The appellant’s first submission was that Shashi <\/p>\n
Bhushan Singh was a passenger.  The appellant’s submission <\/p>\n
that the phrases ‘any person’ and “any passenger” in clauses <\/p>\n
(i) and (ii) of sub section (b) to  Section 147(1) are of wide <\/p>\n
amplitude, is correct.  [See: New  India Assurance Company <\/p>\n
V. Satpal Singh and Others<\/a> 2000 (1) SCC 237 ].    However, <\/p>\n
the  proviso to the sub-section  carves out an exception in <\/p>\n
respect of one class of persons and passengers, namely, <\/p>\n
employees of the  insured.  In other words, if the “person” or <\/p>\n
“passenger” is an employee, then the insurer is required under <\/p>\n
the statute to cover only certain employees.  As stated earlier, <\/p>\n
this would still allow the insured to enter into an agreement to <\/p>\n
cover other employees, but under the proviso to Section 147 <\/p>\n
(1)(b), it is clear that for the purposes of Section 146(1), a <\/p>\n
policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of the <\/p>\n
death arising out of  and in the course of any employment of <\/p>\n
the person insured unless:  first : the liability of the insured <\/p>\n
arises under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and <\/p>\n
second : if the employee is engaged in driving the vehicle and <\/p>\n
if it is a public service vehicle, is engaged as  conductor of the <\/p>\n
vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle.  If the <\/p>\n
concerned employee is neither a driver nor conductor nor <\/p>\n
examiner of tickets, the insured cannot claim that the <\/p>\n
employee would come under the description of “any person” <\/p>\n
or “passenger”.  If this were permissible, then there would be <\/p>\n
no need to make special provisions for employees of the <\/p>\n
insured.  The mere mention of the word “cleaner” while <\/p>\n
describing the seating capacity of the vehicle does not mean <\/p>\n
that the cleaner was therefore a passenger.   Besides the <\/p>\n
claim of the deceased employee was adjudicated upon by the <\/p>\n
Workmen’s Compensation Court which could have assumed <\/p>\n
jurisdiction and passed an order directing compensation only <\/p>\n
on the basis that  the deceased was an employee.  This order <\/p>\n
cannot now be enforced on the basis that the deceased was a <\/p>\n
passenger.\n<\/p>\n
The decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court <\/p>\n
relied on by the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. <\/p>\n
Philomena Mathew : 1993 ACJ 1116 was based on a <\/p>\n
construction of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the <\/p>\n
corresponding section to which under the present Act is <\/p>\n
section 147.  The relevant provisions  of the two sections <\/p>\n
which are otherwise in pari materia are  materially different in <\/p>\n
one respect.  Section 95 covered a fourth category of <\/p>\n
employee after the three now mentioned in clauses (a)(b) and <\/p>\n
(c) to the proviso to Section 147 (1)(b) viz.,:<\/p>\n
“where the vehicle is a vehicle in which <\/p>\n
passengers are carried for hire or reward or by <\/p>\n
reason of or in pursuance of a contract of <\/p>\n
employment, to cover liability in respect of the <\/p>\n
death of or bodily injury to persons being <\/p>\n
carried in or upon or entering or mounting or <\/p>\n
alighting from the vehicle at the time of the <\/p>\n
occurrence of the event, out of which a claim <\/p>\n
arises”.  (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
 So a person carried in pursuance of a contract of <\/p>\n
employment would be a passenger and would be covered as <\/p>\n
such.  The exclusion of this clause in the proviso to Section <\/p>\n
147(1)(b) of the present Act bolsters our reasoning that <\/p>\n
employees other than the three mentioned are not covered by <\/p>\n
Section 147 (1)(b).\n<\/p>\n
The appellant’s next submission was that the concerned <\/p>\n
employee was a ‘conductor’.  It is doubtful whether a ‘khalasi’ <\/p>\n
and a conductor are the same.  But assuming this were so, <\/p>\n
there is nothing to show that the appellant had paid any <\/p>\n
additional premium to cover the risk of injury to a conductor.  <\/p>\n
On the contrary, the policy shows that premium was paid for <\/p>\n
13 passengers and 1 driver.  There is no payment of premium <\/p>\n
for a conductor.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant’s final submission was that as the policy <\/p>\n
was a comprehensive one, it would cover all risks including <\/p>\n
the death of the khalasi.  The submission is unacceptable.  An <\/p>\n
insurance policy only covers the person or classes of persons <\/p>\n
specified in the policy.  A comprehensive policy merely means <\/p>\n
that the loss sustained by such person\/persons will be <\/p>\n
payable upto the insured amount irrespective of the actual <\/p>\n
loss suffered.  [See: New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. J.M. <\/p>\n
Jaya 2002 (2) SCC 278;  Colinvaux’s:  Law of Insurance <\/p>\n
(7th Edition) p. 93-94].\n<\/p>\n
Consequently, although the appellant’s claim under the <\/p>\n
insurance policy arose under the Workmen’s Compensation <\/p>\n
Act, since the concerned employee was not engaged in the <\/p>\n
capacity of driver in respect of whom alone premium was paid <\/p>\n
apart from the passengers, his claim is unsustainable.<\/p>\n
  The appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order <\/p>\n
as to costs.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ramashray Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors on 22 July, 2003 Author: Ruma Pal Bench: Ruma Pal, B.N.Srikrishna. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5147 of 2003 PETITIONER: Ramashray Singh RESPONDENT: Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/07\/2003 BENCH: Ruma Pal & B.N.Srikrishna. JUDGMENT: J […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRamashray Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors on 22 July, 2003 - 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\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramashray Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors on 22 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-17T09:14:36+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\\\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramashray Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors on 22 July, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-17T09:14:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1793,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003\",\"name\":\"Ramashray Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors on 22 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-17T09:14:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramashray Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors on 22 July, 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":"Ramashray Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors on 22 July, 2003 - 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\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramashray Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors on 22 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-17T09:14:36+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\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramashray Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors on 22 July, 2003","datePublished":"2003-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-17T09:14:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003"},"wordCount":1793,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003","name":"Ramashray Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors on 22 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-17T09:14:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramashray-singh-vs-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-ors-on-22-july-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramashray Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors on 22 July, 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\/88022","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=88022"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88022\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}