The Supreme Court has stayed an order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that directed United India Insurance Company to pay over Rs. 82 lakhs to the owner of the Indian Premier League (IPL) team, Rajasthan Royals. The payment was in relation to an injury sustained by cricketer S. Sreesanth during the 2012 IPL tournament. The insurance company had challenged the NCDRC order in the Supreme Court.

The case dates back to 2012 when Rajasthan Royals had obtained a “Special Contingency Insurance for Player Loss of Fees Cover” from United India Insurance Company for a total sum of Rs. 8.70 crores. The policy covered the team for any loss of monies paid to contracted players due to their non-appearance in the tournament, subject to certain conditions. Sreesanth, one of the insured players, suffered a knee injury during a practice match on March 28, 2012, and was found unfit to play in the tournament.

Rajasthan Royals filed a claim for Rs. 82.80 lakhs, which was initially approved by a surveyor appointed by the insurance company. However, the claim was later repudiated by the insurer on the ground that Sreesanth had a pre-existing toe injury that was not disclosed by the team. The team approached the NCDRC, which ruled in their favor and directed the insurance company to pay the insured sum.

In the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing Rajasthan Royals, argued that the pre-existing toe injury did not render Sreesanth incapable of playing, and it was the knee injury sustained during the insurance period that made him unfit. He also pointed out that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) had taken another insurance policy for the same loss of fee, which was paid.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, admitted the matter and stayed the operation of the NCDRC order. The court observed that Sreesanth did not play for a single day in the 2012 IPL tournament. The case will now be heard further by the Supreme Court, which will decide on the validity of the NCDRC order and the insurance company’s liability to pay the claim.

The Madras High Court has overturned the Chennai Metro Rail Limited’s (CMRL) decision to acquire a portion of land belonging to United India Insurance Company for the construction of the Thousand Lights Metro Station. The court ruled that the decision to alter the station’s location, which was originally planned within the premises of a nearby temple, was taken without consulting the insurance company and violated the principles of promissory estoppel and natural justice.

The CMRL had issued a notice to the insurance company to acquire 837 square meters of its land, but the company was not given an opportunity to be heard, despite having invested over Rs 250 crore in constructing its head office on the premises. The court held that the land acquisition notice was a mere formality to justify a premeditated decision and that the petitioner’s legitimate expectations were violated.

The court also emphasized that the principle of promissory estoppel binds government agencies to their commitments and prevents them from arbitrarily rescinding assurances given to private entities. The court rejected the contention that temple lands should be automatically exempt from acquisition, citing a Supreme Court ruling that affirms the state’s power of eminent domain over religious properties.

The court noted procedural irregularities, including a joint site inspection by the first bench without notice to the petitioner, which was described as a violation of natural justice and an “abuse of power” under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also dismissed claims that temple sentiments should override public interest, underscoring that infrastructure projects serve a broader societal purpose.

Ultimately, the court quashed the impugned notice and directed the CMRL to revert to its original plan of constructing the station within the temple premises, provided legal requirements are met. The court refrained from imposing costs but expressed hope that the authorities would take away a broader lesson on fairness and transparency in public decision-making. The case highlights the importance of respecting the principles of promissory estoppel and natural justice in public decision-making and the need for transparency and fairness in the acquisition of land for infrastructure projects.

The Supreme Court of India has stayed an order directing United India Insurance Company to compensate Royal Multisport Private Limited, the owner of the Indian Premier League (IPL) team Rajasthan Royals, with Rs.82 lakh. The dispute arose from a claim made by the team due to the injury of Indian cricketer S. Sreesanth during the 2012 IPL season. The team had obtained a “Special Contingency Insurance for Player Loss of Fees Cover” from the insurer, which covered financial losses incurred due to a player’s non-participation in the tournament.

The insurer repudiated the claim, stating that Sreesanth’s injury was pre-existing and that the team had failed to disclose this material fact at the time of policy inception. The team approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which ruled in their favor, directing the insurer to pay the claimed sum. The insurer challenged the NCDRC’s decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the commission had erred in law and facts by disregarding the material aspect of non-disclosure of prior medical conditions.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, heard arguments from both sides and eventually admitted the matter while staying the impugned order of the consumer commission. The court observed that the matter involved nuanced questions about contractual obligations of disclosure and the distinction between a “pre-existing condition” and a “new injury.” The resolution of the case will likely hinge on the medical evidence distinguishing between Sreesanth’s prior toe injury and his knee injury during the policy period.

The case has wider implications beyond the immediate dispute, underscoring the judiciary’s cautious approach in matters involving specialized insurance contracts, particularly those related to sports and performance-based risk coverage. The judgment will likely set a precedent on how “pre-existing injuries” are to be interpreted under such policies and the extent of disclosure expected from policyholders who insure professional athletes.

The litigation highlights the increasing legal complexities that arise when sports franchises engage in sophisticated commercial arrangements involving insurance, sponsorships, and player contracts. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming adjudication will likely clarify whether a minor prior injury, unrelated to the cause of the insured loss, can justifiably be treated as a ground for repudiation. The outcome may have far-reaching implications for both the insurance industry and professional sports franchises that rely on specialized policies to safeguard their financial interests against player-related contingencies.

In a historic display of corporate philanthropy, India’s most influential business leaders have come together to fund a ₹50 crore group health insurance scheme for members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). The scheme, unveiled during the 75th anniversary celebrations of the Supreme Court of India, is the first of its kind to be directly funded by India Inc. The initiative saw prominent industrialists and conglomerates, including the Vedanta Group, Anil Ambani, Gautam Adani, Kumar Mangalam Birla, Lakshmi Mittal, the Dhirubhai Ambani family, and the Torrent Group, contribute between ₹5 crore and ₹10 crore.

According to SCBA President and senior advocate Kapil Sibal, the scheme is a “lifeline” for young lawyers who often come to the court with dreams but no safety net. The comprehensive health plan, administered by United India Insurance, offers ₹2 lakh annual coverage per family, includes parents and in-laws of the insured lawyer, and covers pre-existing conditions from Day 1. It also provides cashless treatment access in over 15,000 hospitals nationwide, ₹50,000 maternity benefit for both normal and caesarean deliveries, and coverage for congenital conditions, LASIK, and ambulance services.

Sibal personally reached out to each of the business leaders to secure their contributions, with the Ambani family donating ₹10 crore and the others contributing ₹5 crore each. The scheme is now fully available to thousands of SCBA members free of cost. In addition to the insurance launch, the SCBA released a scholarly volume, Pillars of Justice, featuring critical essays on landmark judgments. The book aims to nurture young legal minds and includes contributions from noted legal thinkers.

The dual announcement marks a significant convergence of legal, corporate, and intellectual commitment to strengthening India’s judicial ecosystem and supporting the community that sustains it. The initiative demonstrates the power of collaboration between business leaders and the legal community to create a positive impact on the lives of lawyers and their families. As Sibal emphasized, the scheme and the academic anthology are designed to support the growth and development of young legal minds, ensuring that legal thinking evolves and is not just followed blindly.

A significant insurance fraud case has concluded in Ahmedabad, resulting in the sentencing of three individuals to five years in jail. The accused include Kikubhai Dhodi, a former employee of United India Insurance’s Silvassa branch, and two others, Vasantbhai Patel and Apoorva Patel. The case was heard in a special CBI court, which found the trio guilty of hatching a criminal conspiracy to commit insurance fraud. This conspiracy ultimately led to a substantial financial loss for the insurance company.

The court’s ruling not only included prison time but also imposed a considerable fine of Rs 3.53 million on the three accused. This outcome underscores the seriousness with which Indian legal authorities view insurance fraud, recognizing the significant financial and operational impacts such crimes can have on insurance companies and, by extension, their policyholders.

The sentencing serves as a deterrent to others who might consider engaging in similar fraudulent activities. It highlights the importance of integrity within the insurance sector and the consequences of violating the trust placed in insurance professionals. For companies like United India Insurance, the case demonstrates the necessity of robust internal controls and vigilant monitoring to prevent and detect fraud.

The involvement of a former employee in the fraud scheme also points to the need for thorough background checks and ongoing employee screening. It emphasizes that insurance companies must be proactive in safeguarding their operations against both external threats and internal vulnerabilities.

In conclusion, the sentencing of Kikubhai Dhodi, Vasantbhai Patel, and Apoorva Patel to five years in jail for their roles in an insurance fraud scheme marks a significant legal outcome. It reflects the commitment of Indian judicial and law enforcement bodies to combating financial crimes and protecting the interests of businesses and consumers alike. As the insurance sector continues to evolve, cases like these will play a crucial role in shaping policies and practices aimed at preventing fraud and ensuring the stability of the insurance market.

The Supreme Court of India has upheld a Karnataka High Court decision that held the legal heirs of a person who died due to their own rash and negligent driving are not entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The case, G Nagarathna & Ors. vs. G Manjunatha & Anr., involved a tragic incident where N.S. Ravisha died after losing control of a car he was driving at excessive speed. His family filed a claim for ₹80 lakh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) rejected the claim, citing that Ravisha was the tortfeasor and had caused the accident through his own negligence.

The family appealed to the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the Tribunal’s decision, citing settled Supreme Court precedent that precludes a tortfeasor or their legal representatives from recovering compensation for injury or death resulting from their own negligence. The Supreme Court relied on key precedents, including Ningamma & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Nayan, to dismiss the appeal and uphold the High Court’s decision.

The Court emphasized that tort law treats a borrower as an owner because by taking control and possession of the vehicle, the borrower assumes the same responsibilities and risks as the owner, including the duty to drive safely. Awarding compensation in such circumstances would be contrary to the fundamental principle that no person should derive benefit from their own wrong. The ruling does not affect claims by third parties injured due to the deceased’s negligence, as the insurer would still be liable for valid third-party claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The implications of this ruling are significant, as it reiterates that a tortfeasor or their legal heirs cannot claim damages for losses directly attributable to their own negligence. For claimants, it underscores the necessity of proving that the deceased was not responsible for the accident. For insurers, it provides a strong defense against claims where the insured’s own wrongful conduct caused the fatality, ensuring that insurance does not become a backdoor means to profit from reckless driving.

From a policy perspective, the judgment aligns statutory law with fundamental tort principles and safeguards public interest by discouraging reckless driving and misuse of the compensation framework. It ensures the compensation mechanism does not become an unintended incentive for unlawful behavior on the roads. The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP in G Nagarathna & Ors. vs. G Manjunatha & Anr. is a timely reminder that the principle “no man shall profit from his own wrong” is an enforceable legal doctrine, promoting responsible driving and safeguarding the integrity of the insurance system.

A long-standing dispute over a knee injury sustained by former Indian cricketer S. Sreesanth during the 2012 Indian Premier League (IPL) has reached the Supreme Court. The injury occurred during a practice session in Jaipur, and Sreesanth was subsequently ruled out of the season. The Rajasthan Royals, who had insured their squad under a special contingency policy worth over Rs 8.7 crore, filed a claim of about Rs 82 lakh with their insurer, United India Insurance Co. However, the insurance company rejected the claim, citing non-disclosure of pre-existing injuries.

The insurer maintained that Sreesanth had been carrying toe and knee problems since 2010-11, and therefore the claim was not payable. The matter eventually reached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which directed the insurer to honour the policy and pay Rs 82.8 lakh with 9% annual simple interest from December 2012. The insurer has now approached the Supreme Court, challenging the NCDRC’s order and arguing that the Commission overlooked key facts, including Sreesanth’s pre-existing toe injury.

The insurer contends that Sreesanth was bound to disclose this information under the principle of utmost good faith, and that failure to do so makes the contract voidable. The company has relied on previous Supreme Court rulings to submit that the non-disclosure of pre-existing conditions amounts to suppression and makes the contract voidable. The insurer has also cited a medical expert’s report, which claims that Sreesanth’s knee condition during the 2012 IPL was not the result of a fresh or accidental event, but rather part of a continuum of injuries dating back to 2010.

The case has been adjourned for two weeks to allow the insurer to place additional documents on record, including the insurance application and disclosures made at the time of the policy. The Supreme Court will hear the case again after the insurer has had a chance to submit these documents. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the insurance industry and the sports world, particularly with regard to the disclosure of pre-existing injuries and the principle of utmost good faith. The court’s decision will provide clarity on the obligations of insurers and insured parties in such cases, and will help to establish a precedent for future disputes.

A Special Judge for CBI Cases in Vijayawada, A. Sitarama Krishna Rao, has convicted Kola Rama Narasimham, a Development Officer at the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.’s Kandukuru Branch, in a corruption case. Narasimham was found guilty of demanding a bribe of ₹10,000 from a complainant in exchange for forwarding an insurance claim file related to the death of a buffalo to the Divisional Office in Guntur. The complainant had allegedly been asked to pay the bribe by Narasimham, who was abusing his official position as a public servant.

The CBI’s Visakhapatnam Branch caught Narasimham red-handed while he was demanding and accepting the bribe during a trap proceeding. After a thorough trial, the court convicted Narasimham under sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As a result, Narasimham has been sentenced to four years of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000. He has been sent to the District Jail in Vijayawada to serve his sentence.

The case highlights the efforts of the CBI to curb corruption and ensure accountability among public servants. The court’s conviction and sentencing of Narasimham demonstrate the seriousness with which such offenses are taken and the consequences that individuals can face for engaging in corrupt practices. The incident also serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and integrity in public offices and the need for individuals to report any instances of corruption or wrongdoing.

The conviction and sentencing of Narasimham are a significant development in the fight against corruption, and it is hoped that such actions will serve as a deterrent to others who may be tempted to engage in similar wrongdoing. The case is a testament to the effectiveness of the legal system in holding individuals accountable for their actions and upholding the principles of justice and fairness.

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that insurance companies are not liable to pay compensation to the kin of drivers who die due to their own reckless or negligent driving. The court dismissed a claim petition filed by the family of a man who died in a car accident while driving at high speed and performing daredevil stunts. The family had demanded Rs 80 lakh in compensation from United India Insurance Company.

The incident occurred on June 18, 2014, when N S Ravisha was driving a Fiat Linea from Mallasandra village to Arasikere town with his family members as co-passengers. He drove rashly and broke traffic rules, losing control of the vehicle, which toppled over and rolled on the road. Ravisha succumbed to his injuries, and his family claimed compensation, stating that he was a busy contractor earning Rs 3 lakh per month.

However, the police filed a chargesheet blaming Ravisha’s rash and negligent driving for the accident. The Motor Accident Tribunal rejected the family’s claim, and the Karnataka High Court upheld the decision, stating that the family could not claim compensation when the accident was caused by the deceased’s own mistake. The High Court added that it is necessary to prove that the deceased was not responsible for the accident and that they were covered under the policy to make the insurance company liable.

The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan, agreed with the High Court’s decision, stating that family members cannot demand an insurance payout when death is caused due to a mistake on the part of the deceased without any extraneous factors. The court’s ruling sends a strong message to speed addicts and those who engage in reckless driving, emphasizing that insurance companies are not liable to pay compensation in such cases. The family’s claim for Rs 80 lakh in compensation was rejected, and the insurance company was not held liable for the payment.

The United India Insurance Company (UIICL) has reported a significant turnaround in its financial performance, achieving a net profit of ₹154 crore for the 2024-25 fiscal year. This marks a substantial improvement from the previous year’s loss of ₹804 crore. The company’s gross direct premium income stood at ₹20,072 crore, with a combined ratio of 121.67%, representing a 4% improvement. Additionally, UIICL’s customer base has exceeded the 2 crore mark, solidifying its position as the country’s 4th largest general insurer.

According to Bhupesh Sushil Rahul, CMD of UIICL, the company’s focus on technological innovation, customer satisfaction, and risk management has enabled it to adapt to the evolving industry dynamics and emerge stronger. The insurer has implemented prudent underwriting and strategic loss control measures, which have contributed to its return to profitability.

In line with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India’s (IRDAI) vision of “Insurance for All by 2047,” UIICL has introduced a range of innovative insurance solutions designed to meet the changing needs of customers. These products include a comprehensive personal accident policy, parametric insurance, usage-based motor insurance, cyber insurance, and a home protection plan. By prioritizing customer-centric strategies, seamless claims processing, and enhanced service standards, UIICL aims to deliver financial security, strengthen customer trust, and redefine industry leadership.

With a presence across India, UIICL offers a diverse portfolio of insurance solutions, including health, motor, property, and marine coverage. The company’s commitment to innovation, customer satisfaction, and risk management has enabled it to reclaim its position as a profitable force in the industry. As the insurance landscape continues to evolve, UIICL is well-positioned to meet the changing needs of its customers and maintain its momentum as a leading general insurer in the country.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled in favor of the Andhra Cricket Association, holding United India Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for a deficiency in service. The insurance company had wrongfully repudiated a claim related to the cancellation of a One Day International cricket match between India and West Indies, scheduled for October 14, 2014, in Vishakhapatnam. The match was cancelled due to cyclone Hudhud, which hit the city on October 12, 2014.

The Andhra Cricket Association had taken an insurance policy from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to cover any losses in case the match was cancelled. The policy insured the match day, October 14, 2014. However, the insurance company argued that the policy was only valid for 24 hours, starting from midnight on October 14 to midnight on October 15. They claimed that the cyclone occurred before the policy period, and therefore, the claim was not valid.

The NCDRC bench, presided by Justice A.P. Sahi, rejected the insurer’s claim, stating that the cyclone was a covered peril under the insurance policy. The commission applied the rule of “Contra Proferentem,” which means that the language of a contract is to be taken most strongly against the party using it. In this case, the commission held that the repudiation of the insurance claim was unjustified, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. was guilty of deficiency in services.

As a result, the commission directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 2,35,81,470 to the Andhra Cricket Association, along with an interest of 6% from the date of filing the complaint. The commission’s decision emphasizes the importance of interpreting insurance contracts in a way that indemnifies losses caused by covered perils, rather than giving a narrow interpretation that defeats the purpose of the contract.

The case highlights the need for insurance companies to honor their commitments and provide fair compensation to policyholders in the event of a claim. The NCDRC’s decision sets a precedent for similar cases, where insurance companies may try to repudiate claims on technical grounds. The ruling ensures that policyholders are protected and that insurance companies are held accountable for their actions.

A significant verdict has been delivered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Bhopal, India, nearly a decade after a tragic gas cylinder accident claimed one life and injured several others. The incident occurred on April 15, 2015, when a gas leak from the regulator caused a fire at a residence in Sanjay Nagar, resulting in the death of 35-year-old Durgesh Gupta and injuring six other family members.

Despite repeated requests, the family was not provided with insurance details by the gas agency or Indian Oil Corporation, leaving them without compensation. The family was forced to take legal action, which ultimately led to the Commission’s ruling. The Commission found that the accident was caused by a defective washer in the gas regulator, which was a fault in the equipment, not negligence by the consumer.

The Commission has directed United India Insurance Company to pay ₹10 lakh compensation to the deceased’s children, Harshita, Deepak, and Harsh, which will be deposited jointly in their names and placed in Fixed Deposits (FDs) until they reach adulthood. Additionally, the other injured family members, Kiran Devi, Suman, and Krishna, will receive ₹10,000 each as compensation.

The Commission also ruled that the gas agency and Indian Oil Corporation had fulfilled their responsibilities and were not liable for service deficiency. The verdict reinforces consumer rights and highlights the importance of insurance companies processing claims in a timely and efficient manner. The Commission’s ruling is a significant victory for the family, who had been seeking justice for nearly a decade.

The Commission’s order also includes directives for the payment of compensation, including a 9% annual interest rate if the payment is not made within the stipulated time. Kiran Devi will also receive ₹3,000 for legal expenses. The verdict is a reminder that consumers have the right to seek compensation for faulty products or services, and that insurance companies must fulfill their obligations to policyholders.

The United India Insurance Company Limited (UIIC) has released the results for the Administrative Officer- Scale I (Generalists and Specialists) 2024 written examination. Candidates who took the online exam on December 21, 2024, can now check their results on the official UIIC website at uiic.co.in. To access the results, candidates can follow these steps:

1. Visit the UIIC website at uiic.co.in
2. Click on the recruitment link on the home page
3. Click on the UIIC AO Result 2024 link for the written exam
4. A new PDF file will open with roll numbers of qualified candidates
5. Download and save the file for future reference

Candidates who qualify for the written exam will be eligible to appear for the interview round. The final selection will be based on overall performance in the written exam and interview, as well as qualifying in the descriptive test. The call letters for the interview will be available for download from the company website before February 20, 2025.

Candidates called for the interview will need to submit attested copies of required documents, which will be specified in the call letter. For more information, candidates can visit the official UIIC website. The UIIC AO Result 2024 is now available, and candidates can check their roll numbers using the direct link provided.

It’s essential for candidates to check their results and follow the next steps as specified by the UIIC. The interview round will be the next stage of the selection process, and candidates must prepare accordingly. The final selection will depend on the candidate’s performance in both the written exam and the interview. Candidates can visit the UIIC website for more details and updates on the recruitment process.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Thane has awarded a total compensation of over Rs 87 lakh to the family of a woman who died and two others who suffered serious injuries in a truck accident on the Nashik-Mumbai Highway in 2017. The accident occurred on April 22, 2017, when a group of Sadhwis and their attendants were on a religious pilgrimage from Nashik to Mumbai. The truck veered into the group, causing fatal and life-altering injuries to some of the members.

The tribunal, presided over by Chairman S.B. Agrawal, heard the claims filed against the truck owner, Munna Maghai Yadhav, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Advocate Y.S. Duduskar represented the petitioners, while Advocate K.V. Poojari represented the insurance company. The truck owner remained absent in all three cases.

The compensation awarded includes Rs 38.58 lakh to 66-year-old Ratnashilaji Hirachand Chopda Jain, who was wheelchair-bound and sustained severe head, chest, and abdominal injuries that have left her bedridden since the accident. The family of Ratni alias Rupni Hansda, who died due to severe head injuries, was awarded Rs 24.32 lakh. Another victim, 64-year-old Sunita alias Samonidevi Neyaka Manjhi, who suffered fractures and a head injury, was granted Rs 24.37 lakh.

The insurance company had raised a defense claiming that the vehicle driver lacked a valid license and permit, which would have breached the policy’s terms. However, the tribunal found no evidence to support this contention and held both the vehicle owner and the insurer jointly liable to pay the compensation. The order was dated May 8, and a copy was made available on Saturday. The tribunal’s decision provides some relief to the families of the victims, who have been affected by the devastating accident.

The Rajasthan Royals cricket team has been embroiled in a decade-long legal dispute with their insurer, United India Insurance, over a claim of ₹82 lakh related to an injury suffered by former India fast bowler S. Sreesanth in 2012. During a practice match in Jaipur, Sreesanth suffered a knee injury that ruled him out for the season. The Royals had insured their players under a contingency policy worth over ₹8.7 crore and filed a claim stating that the knee injury left him unfit to play.

However, the insurer rejected the claim, arguing that Sreesanth was already carrying a toe injury from 2011 that had not been disclosed when the policy was taken. The Royals took the matter to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which ruled in their favor and directed the insurance company to pay. United India Insurance appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case is now under fresh scrutiny.

The Royals argue that Sreesanth’s toe injury never prevented him from playing matches and that the only reason he missed the 2012 season was due to the new knee injury. They have presented fitness certificates as proof, highlighting that the toe issue was not significant. The Supreme Court has raised questions about whether the toe injury was formally disclosed when the insurance was taken and has asked the insurance company to submit additional documents, including Sreesanth’s fitness certificates and the original policy application.

The case remains unresolved, with the Royals waiting for a final ruling on whether their claim will be honored. The long-drawn legal battle has kept both the franchise and its insurer entangled in court proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision will determine the outcome of the case, which has been ongoing for over a decade. The dispute highlights the complexities of insurance claims and the importance of disclosing pre-existing injuries when taking out a policy. The case is a significant one for the Rajasthan Royals, who are seeking to recover the ₹82 lakh they claim is owed to them.

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that insurance companies are not obligated to pay compensation to victims who die due to rash and negligent driving. This decision was made by a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan, who denied a plea by the kin of a victim seeking Rs 80 lakh in compensation from United India Insurance Company. The case involved a man named N.S. Ravisha, who died in a car accident on June 18, 2018, while driving at high speed and breaking traffic rules.

The accident occurred when Ravisha’s car toppled over and rolled on the road, resulting in his death. His wife and son subsequently claimed compensation, citing that Ravisha was a busy contractor who earned Rs 3 lakh per month. However, the police chargesheet revealed that Ravisha’s rash and negligent driving was the cause of his death, and the Motor Accident Tribunal rejected the claim.

The Karnataka High Court also dismissed the compensation claim on November 23 last year, and the Supreme Court has now upheld this decision. The court stated that the family cannot demand compensation as the death was caused by Ravisha’s own negligence and did not involve any extraneous factors. This ruling sets a precedent that insurance companies are not liable to pay compensation in cases where the victim’s own negligence is the primary cause of death.

The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the importance of responsible driving and adherence to traffic rules. It also emphasizes that insurance companies are not obligated to bear the costs of accidents caused by reckless behavior. The ruling may have significant implications for future cases involving rash and negligent driving, and may serve as a deterrent to drivers who engage in such behavior.

In this case, the Supreme Court’s decision is consistent with the principles of personal responsibility and the concept of “contributory negligence,” which holds that individuals who contribute to their own harm or injury cannot seek compensation from others. The court’s ruling is also in line with the objective of promoting road safety and reducing the number of accidents caused by reckless driving. Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision is a significant development in the realm of insurance law and road safety in India.

The Supreme Court of India has made a significant ruling that may have major implications for vehicle owners and insurance companies. The court has decided that insurance companies are not obligated to pay compensation to the families of drivers who die as a result of their own reckless driving or dangerous stunts. This verdict aims to promote personal responsibility in road safety and deter reckless driving. The ruling was made in the case of N S Ravisha, who lost his life in a fatal accident while driving his Fiat Linea at high speed. According to police reports, Ravisha was driving rashly and disregarding traffic regulations when he lost control of the vehicle.

Ravisha’s family sought compensation of ₹80 lakh from the United India Insurance Company, citing his successful contracting business and monthly earnings of ₹3 lakh. However, the police evidence indicated that his reckless driving was the primary cause of the crash. The Motor Accident Tribunal initially dismissed the family’s compensation claim, and this decision was upheld by the Karnataka High Court. The High Court emphasized the need for legal representatives to demonstrate that the deceased was not responsible for the accident.

The Supreme Court has now confirmed the lower court’s ruling, stating that since Ravisha was at fault, his family cannot claim compensation from the insurance company. This decision highlights the importance of personal responsibility in road safety and sends a clear message about the dangers of speed and unsafe driving. The ruling may set a precedent for similar cases in the future and is likely to have substantial implications for both car owners and insurers. It emphasizes that individuals cannot seek compensation for accidents caused by their own negligence, and insurance companies are not liable to pay in such cases.

The verdict is seen as a warning against high-speed driving and dangerous antics that often put lives at risk. It reinforces the need for road users to be accountable for their actions and to prioritize safety above all else. The Supreme Court’s decision is a significant step towards promoting road safety and reducing the number of accidents caused by reckless driving. By denying compensation to families of drivers who engage in such behavior, the court hopes to deter others from taking similar risks and to encourage a culture of safe and responsible driving.

The Dharwad District Consumer Grievances Redressal Commission has penalized United India Insurance Company for rejecting a claim for eye treatment, imposing a fine of Rs 50,000 on the firm. The complainant, Ganesh Shetty, had taken out an insurance policy with the company and underwent cataract treatment at MM Joshi Eye Hospital in Dharwad, paying Rs 32,561. Despite having an active policy, the insurance company refused to reimburse the amount, prompting Shetty to file a complaint with the commission.

The commission, comprising Chairman Eshappa Bhute and member Vishalakshi Bolashetti, reviewed the complaint and found that Shetty had been a legitimate policyholder since 2010, continuously paying premiums and renewing his policy. The policy was active at the time of the treatment, and Shetty had submitted receipts for the treatment costs. The commission deemed the insurance company’s rejection of the claim as a “deficiency in service” under the Consumer Protection Act.

The commission ruled in favor of Shetty, ordering the insurance company to reimburse the treatment costs of Rs 32,561, along with 10% interest. Additionally, the company was ordered to pay compensation of Rs 50,000 for the inconvenience and mental distress caused, as well as Rs 10,000 towards legal costs. The commission’s decision highlights the importance of insurance companies fulfilling their obligations to policyholders and the consequences of failing to do so.

The case serves as a reminder to insurance companies to carefully review claims and provide fair reimbursement to policyholders. The commission’s ruling also underscores the importance of consumer protection laws in ensuring that individuals receive fair treatment and compensation for grievances. By imposing a significant penalty on the insurance company, the commission has sent a strong message about the need for companies to prioritize customer satisfaction and adherence to consumer protection laws.

The Financial Services Institutions Bureau (FSIB) has recommended Sanjay Joshi for the position of Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) at Oriental Insurance Company Limited (OICL). The position had been vacant since the retirement of R.R. Singh, a direct recruit officer from the 1987 batch, in February 2025. To fill the gap, the government had appointed Executive Director Amit Misra as the acting CMD for a three-month period starting March 1, 2025.

Sanjay Joshi is currently serving as General Manager at United India Insurance Company, where he has worked for over 30 years. He is a direct recruit officer from the 1989 batch and has held various roles, including branch and divisional head, across multiple regional offices. Joshi has also been part of the Large Corporate Cell (LCC) in Delhi and has served as Deputy General Manager at the company’s head office. Additionally, he has held the position of Chief Grievance Officer.

Joshi’s educational background includes a postgraduate degree in Environmental Sciences and a postgraduate diploma in Marketing Management. He is also a Fellow Member of the Insurance Institute of India, demonstrating his expertise and commitment to the insurance industry. With his extensive experience and qualifications, Joshi is well-suited to take on the role of CMD at OICL.

The recommendation of Joshi by the FSIB is a significant development, as it indicates that the government is looking to bring in a seasoned professional to lead OICL. The company is one of the largest public sector general insurance companies in India, and the appointment of a new CMD is crucial for its future growth and development. Joshi’s experience and expertise in the general insurance sector make him an ideal candidate for the role, and his appointment is likely to be welcomed by the industry.

Overall, the recommendation of Sanjay Joshi as the new CMD of OICL is a positive development for the company and the insurance industry as a whole. With his extensive experience and qualifications, Joshi is well-placed to lead OICL and drive its growth and development in the future. The appointment is subject to formal approval, but it is likely to be finalized soon, marking a new chapter for the company.

The United India Insurance Company (UIIC) has released the interview call letter for the Administrative Officer (AO) position on its official website, www.uiic.co.in. The call letter was made available on February 14, 2025, for candidates who cleared the online examination. This year, UIIC has announced 200 vacancies for the AO post. Candidates who have qualified for the interview must download their call letter, which contains essential details such as the date, time, and venue of the interview.

To download the call letter, candidates need to log in using their registration number and date of birth/password. A direct link to download the call letter has been provided for convenience. The call letter is a crucial document for the selection process, and candidates must ensure they download it well in advance and follow all the instructions mentioned.

The steps to download the UIIC AO Interview Call Letter 2025 are as follows:

1. Visit the official website of UIIC at www.uiic.co.in.
2. Navigate to the Careers Section and click on the “UIIC AO Interview Call Letter 2025” link.
3. Enter login credentials, including registration number and date of birth/password.
4. View and download the call letter, and take a printout for future reference.

The call letter contains important details such as registration number, name of the candidate, interview venue, interview date, exam name, reporting time, and candidate’s address. Candidates must carefully verify these details to ensure accuracy and authenticity before appearing for the interview.

It is essential for candidates to carry their call letter to the designated venue on the scheduled date, as it is a mandatory document for the interview. Candidates who have been shortlisted for the UIIC AO Interview 2025 can now download their call letter and prepare for the final stage of the recruitment process. By following the steps outlined above, candidates can easily download their call letter and stay on track for the interview.

The Financial Services Institutions Bureau (FSIB) has recommended Sanjay Joshi, a seasoned officer from the 1989 batch, for the post of Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (OICL). This decision comes after the retirement of R.R. Singh in February 2025. Joshi is currently serving as General Manager at United India Insurance Company and has over 30 years of experience in the general insurance sector.

The recommendation of Sanjay Joshi as CMD of OICL marks a crucial leadership transition in one of India’s major public sector general insurance companies. This move follows a temporary appointment of Amit Misra as acting CMD, who was appointed for a three-month term starting March 1, 2025. The CMD post became vacant after R.R. Singh, a 1987 batch officer, retired in February 2025.

Sanjay Joshi has a strong background in the insurance sector, having held various positions such as Branch and Divisional Head, Deputy General Manager, Chief Grievance Officer, and Member of the Large Corporate Cell (LCC), Delhi. He holds a postgraduate degree in Environmental Sciences, a postgraduate diploma in Marketing Management, and is a Fellow Member of the Insurance Institute of India.

The FSIB is the recommending authority for leadership appointments in public sector financial institutions, ensuring merit-based and transparent selections for CMD and Director-level roles. The recommendation of Sanjay Joshi is significant, as it comes at a time when OICL is navigating sectoral changes and policy reforms. With his extensive experience and qualifications, Joshi is well-positioned to lead the company forward and address the challenges facing the insurance sector.

The appointment of Sanjay Joshi as CMD of OICL is expected to bring stability and continuity to the company, which is one of India’s four major public sector general insurance companies. The move is also seen as a positive development for the insurance sector, as it demonstrates the government’s commitment to appointing experienced and qualified leaders to key positions. Overall, the recommendation of Sanjay Joshi as CMD of OICL is a significant development that is expected to have a positive impact on the company and the insurance sector as a whole.

The Delhi State Commission, led by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, has ruled that bariatric surgery for chronic diseases is a life-saving procedure and cannot be excluded from standard policy terms. The case involved a group medical insurance policy provided by the insurer, which covered pre-existing conditions. The complainant, a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association, sought approval for cashless claims for his father’s dual surgeries: gallbladder removal and bariatric surgery. However, the insurer’s Third-Party Administrator (TPA) approved only a partial amount for the gallbladder surgery and rejected the claim for the bariatric surgery, citing exclusions for obesity-related conditions.

The complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, which allowed the complaint and directed the insurer to refund Rs 5,03,231.80 as medical expenses, pay Rs 2,00,000 as compensation, and Rs 25,000 as litigation costs. The insurer appealed to the National Commission, arguing that the surgery was not for a life-threatening event but for cosmetic purposes, making it ineligible for an insurance claim.

The State Commission observed that the main issue was whether the insurer had been rightly held liable for deficiency of service by the District Commission. The commission noted that the policy terms excluded coverage for conditions such as convalescence, psychiatric disorders, obesity-related treatments, and cosmetic procedures. However, the commission relied on case laws, including Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamleshbhai Udani and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Gupta, which established that morbid obesity is a serious disease requiring life-saving intervention, not cosmetic treatment.

The commission also noted that the National Commission has repeatedly ruled that bariatric surgery addressing chronic diseases like diabetes or hypertension, combined with obesity, is a life-saving procedure and not excluded under standard policy terms. In this case, the complainant’s father underwent bariatric surgery as a prerequisite to gallstone removal, and his medical condition, including morbid obesity and chronic illnesses, necessitated the procedure.

The commission agreed with the District Commission that the insurer’s denial of the claim was unjustified and amounted to a deficiency of service. The commission upheld the District Commission’s order, affirming that the surgery was life-saving and covered under the policy. The appeal by the insurer was dismissed without costs. This ruling emphasizes that bariatric surgery for chronic diseases is a life-saving procedure that cannot be excluded from standard policy terms, and insurers must cover such procedures under their policies.

The Kerala State Human Rights Commission has intervened in a decade-long case of a missing fisherman, directing an insurance company to decide on the claim filed by his family within two months. Biju, a fisherman from Pallithura, went missing on November 16, 2014, while venturing into the sea from the Vizhinjam coast. Despite the family producing a certificate of “man missing” issued by the sub-collector, the insurance company, United India Insurance Company, rejected the claim citing technicalities.

The Commission, led by Chairperson Justice Alexander Thomas, observed that the insurance company’s reliance on technicalities was unjust, particularly given the circumstances of the case. The company had argued that the family had reported the matter only three years after Biju went missing, and the claim was submitted nine years later, making it ineligible. However, Justice Thomas dismissed this argument, citing Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that a person can be presumed dead only after seven years of being reported missing.

The Commission noted that the seven-year period ended in 2021, but the petitioner, Biju’s mother Margaret, had approached the insurance company as early as 2019. Furthermore, the insurance scheme was part of the government’s special insurance project under the Fishermen Welfare Fund Board, with the government paying the insurance premium. This distinction is significant, as it highlights the government’s role in providing support to the families of missing fishermen.

The Kerala State Human Rights Commission’s directive is a compassionate move, acknowledging the difficulties faced by the family of the missing fisherman. The Commission’s order emphasizes the need for insurance companies to prioritize humanitarian considerations over technicalities, particularly in cases where the government is involved. By directing the insurance company to make a decision on the claim within two months, the Commission is ensuring that the family receives a timely and fair resolution to their complaint.

This case underscores the importance of having a supportive system in place for the families of missing persons, including access to insurance claims and government support. The Commission’s intervention serves as a reminder that the rights of citizens, particularly those in vulnerable situations, must be protected and respected. As the family of Biju awaits the insurance company’s decision, they can take comfort in the knowledge that the Kerala State Human Rights Commission is advocating on their behalf, championing their right to fair treatment and compensation.

The Indian government is set to review the financial and operational performance of three state-run general insurers: Oriental Insurance, National Insurance, and United India Insurance. The review aims to determine the need for capital infusion to strengthen the solvency ratios of these companies, which are currently below the regulatory requirements of 1.50. Despite significant improvement in their financial performance, the solvency ratios of these companies remain a concern.

The government has already invested ₹17,450 crore in these companies between 2019-20 and 2021-22 to support their growth. However, the underwriting losses for public sector general insurance companies were ₹18,862 crore in 2023-24, with a profit of only ₹157 crore. To address this, the companies have undertaken various measures to improve their profitability, including adopting key performance indicators, enhancing IT capabilities, launching new products, and setting up centralized hubs for underwriting and claims.

The government’s review of the insurers’ performance is also timed with the upcoming Insurance Amendment Bill, which aims to increase foreign direct investment (FDI) in insurance to 100% and reduce the minimum paid-up capital required for insurance companies. The bill is expected to be introduced in the budget session and will further open up the sector to competition.

The insurance industry in India has seen a decline in penetration, with overall insurance penetration declining to 3.7% in 2023-24 from 4% in 2022-23. The life insurance industry saw a marginal decline in penetration from 3% to 2.8%, while the non-life insurance industry remained steady at 1%. The government’s review of the state-run insurers and the introduction of the Insurance Amendment Bill aim to address these challenges and strengthen the insurance sector in India.

The official review of the insurers’ performance will be based on projections, and some amount may be allocated in the budget to support their growth. The government’s efforts to strengthen the insurance sector are crucial, given the decline in insurance penetration and the need to increase access to insurance products for the Indian population. The upcoming Insurance Amendment Bill and the government’s review of the state-run insurers are expected to play a key role in shaping the future of the insurance industry in India.

United India Insurance Company Ltd (UIICL), a public sector non-life insurer, has partnered with the Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) to provide general insurance products to the MSME (Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises) sector. The partnership aims to offer comprehensive insurance solutions, including home, health, motor, and engineering products, to SIDBI’s customers across its 123 branches nationwide.

The collaboration is expected to increase insurance penetration among MSMEs, a sector that is central to India’s economic growth. UIICL views this alliance as a key step towards achieving this goal. According to Mathew George, Executive Director of UIICL, the partnership will provide customized insurance solutions to MSMEs, which will help to protect them against various risks and uncertainties.

SIDBI, on the other hand, sees the collaboration as a step forward in delivering integrated financial and insurance services under one roof. Ravindran A.L., Chief Business Officer of SIDBI, believes that the partnership will enable the bank to offer a wider range of services to its customers, thereby enhancing their overall experience.

The partnership is a significant move towards promoting financial inclusion and risk management among MSMEs. By offering customized insurance products, UIICL and SIDBI aim to help MSMEs mitigate risks and uncertainties, and ensure their business continuity. The collaboration is also expected to contribute to the growth and development of the MSME sector, which is a key driver of India’s economic growth.

Overall, the partnership between UIICL and SIDBI is a positive development for the MSME sector, and is expected to have a significant impact on the growth and development of the sector. With this partnership, UIICL and SIDBI are well-positioned to provide comprehensive insurance solutions to MSMEs, and contribute to the overall development of the Indian economy. The partnership is a win-win for both parties, and is expected to yield positive results in the long run.

A single judge has quashed the notification issued by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) to acquire land belonging to the United India Insurance firm for the construction of an entry and exit point. The notification was issued under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu (Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes) Act, 1997. However, the Advocate General, PS Raman, has argued that the CMRL had only intended to acquire the Open Space Reservation (OSR) land and not the land belonging to the insurance firm.

The single judge’s decision was made without considering a previous order by the first bench, according to Raman. The CMRL has stated that it has no objections to proceeding with the construction as per the proposal. The issue arose when the United India Insurance firm filed a petition against the CMRL’s notification to acquire its land. The firm had constructed a building at a cost of Rs 200 crore, after obtaining all necessary clearances and No-Objection Certificates (NOC) from the CMRL.

Justice Anand Venkatesh, while quashing the notification, had stated that demolishing a recently constructed building would be contrary to public interest. The judge had also made a philosophical statement, saying “God will forgive us. God will protect the petitioners, the authorities, and also the author of this judgment. God will be with us.” The CMRL’s intention to acquire only the OSR land and not the insurance firm’s land was not taken into account by the single judge, according to the Advocate General. The matter is still pending, and the CMRL is willing to proceed with the construction as per the proposal, with the necessary adjustments to avoid acquiring the insurance firm’s land.

The Tamil Nadu Health Department recently paid a premium of ₹1,262.91 crore for the Chief Minister’s Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme (CMCHIS). The payment was made to United India Insurance Company, covering 95% of the premium amount for 1,48,57,459 beneficiary families, which amounts to ₹1,198.32 crore. This covers the period from January 11, 2025, to January 10, 2026. An additional ₹64.59 crore was paid, which is the remaining 5% of last year’s premium amount.

Health Minister Ma. Subramanian handed over the cheque to officials of United India Insurance Company, highlighting the scheme’s success. Since its inception on July 23, 2009, a total of 1,45,81,445 individuals have benefited from CMCHIS, with a total expenditure of ₹13,991 crore. The scheme has empaneled 2,157 hospitals, including 942 government and 1,215 private hospitals, covering a wide range of medical and surgical procedures.

The scheme provides coverage for 2,053 medical and surgical procedures, eight higher specialty procedures, 52 diagnostic procedures, and 11 follow-up procedures. Recently, special camps were held across the state to mark former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi’s birth centenary, resulting in the addition of 99,935 new beneficiaries to the scheme. In Chennai alone, 9,796 individuals were added as new beneficiaries.

On the occasion, the Minister also handed over financial assistance of ₹1 crore each to the family members of six government doctors who died during service, under the Doctors Corpus Fund. Awards were also given to government and private hospitals that performed well under CMCHIS. The event was attended by Health Secretary Supriya Sahu and Project Director of Tamil Nadu Health Systems Project A. Arun Thamburaj. The payment of the premium amount ensures the continued coverage of beneficiary families under the scheme, providing them with access to quality healthcare services.

United India Insurance Company Limited Recruitment

The United India Insurance Company Limited (UIIC) is seeking a qualified candidate to fill a position that requires a high level of expertise in actuarial science. To be eligible for this role, applicants must meet specific qualification requirements. Firstly, they must be a Fellow Member under the Actuaries Act, 2006, and also a Fellow Member of the Institute of Actuaries of India (IAI). Additionally, the candidate should have experience in General Insurance, Enterprise Risk, and Investment Reserves.

Key Eligibility Criteria

• Fellow Member under the Actuaries Act, 2006
• Fellow Member of the Institute of Actuaries of India (IAI)
• Experience in General Insurance, Enterprise Risk, and Investment Reserves
• Age not exceeding 60 years (as per full-time contract)
• For more details on age and educational qualifications, visit the official website

Selection Process

The selection process for this recruitment will be based on an interview. There will be no written examination. UIIC has advised all candidates to ensure that they attach all necessary documents while applying for the position. This is a crucial step to ensure that applications are considered complete and eligible for the next stage of the selection process.

Application Submission

To apply for this position, candidates must fill out the application form and send it to the specified address:

HRM Department
8th Floor, United India Insurance Company Limited
24, Whites Road, Chennai – 600014

Additionally, applicants must also send the application via email to recruitment@uiic.co.in and a copy to hoactuarial@uiic.co.in. It is essential to follow these submission guidelines carefully to ensure that the application is received and processed correctly. By meeting the qualification requirements and following the application process, candidates can take the first step towards a potential career opportunity with UIIC. With its reputation for excellence in the insurance industry, UIIC offers a challenging and rewarding work environment for successful applicants.

A special CBI court in Ahmedabad has sentenced five individuals, including a former divisional manager of a public sector insurance company, to five years in prison and a total fine of Rs 5.91 crore. The individuals, including Madhusudan B Patel, Pankaj Gupta, and Inderjot Singh, were found guilty of fraudulent payment of insurance brokerage. The case was registered by the CBI in February 2012, accusing Patel and others of issuing various insurance policies and causing loss to the government exchequer and gain to the accused.

The investigation revealed that Patel, as divisional manager of United India Insurance Company Ltd. in Ahmedabad from 2007 to 2010, issued Group Janata Personal Accident Policies as co-insurance business to the Directorate of Insurance, Government Insurance Fund, and GOG. However, these policies were underwritten by Patel using his own user ID and password, and were placed with unauthorized brokers, resulting in a wrongful loss of Rs 2.69 crore to the insurance company and a wrongful gain to the private brokers.

The CBI examined 20 witnesses and presented 61 documents to establish the guilt of the accused. Besides the jail term and fine, the court has also directed the registry to send the order to the departmental head of United India Insurance Company Ltd. and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) for necessary action against the brokers. The court’s order is a significant victory for the CBI in its efforts to curb fraudulent activities in the insurance sector.

The Madras High Court has quashed a notice issued by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) to the United India Insurance Company Limited (UIICL), calling for the acquisition of a property measuring 837 square meters for its project. The UIICL had challenged the notice, and the court has allowed the petition, ruling that the notice was vitiated due to its violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and the principle of promissory estoppel.

The CMRL had initially proposed to construct a metro station near a temple at Whites Road in Chennai, but later changed its plan after a PIL was filed by the Aalayam Kaapom Foundation. The court had asked CMRL to modify its plan, and it had issued the notice to UIICL, proposing to acquire a portion of its property. The court has now ruled that this notice was issued without due process and in bad faith.

The judge, N Anand Venkatesh, observed that the CMRL’s actions were arbitrary and violative of public interest. He noted that the CMRL had changed its plan solely due to the PIL, rather than considering public safety, convenience, and other technical factors. The judge also expressed hope that the State and the CMRL would realize the true meaning of Swami Vivekananda’s words on the importance of uniting mankind and serving humanity.

The court’s decision is seen as a major setback for the CMRL and a victory for the UIICL. While the court has allowed the UIICL’s petition, it has also noted that the CMRL can proceed with its original plan to construct the metro station at the temple premises, if it so desires. However, the court’s decision is a significant blow to the CMRL’s attempt to acquire the UIICL’s property without due process.

A sales manager at Diageo India (United Spirits Limited) has been awarded a compensation of ₹1.39 crore by the Thane Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) after he suffered permanent disability in a luxury bus accident in 2019. The bus was owned and insured by United India Insurance Company, which was also held liable for the accident, which occurred on December 15, 2019, near Savarne Village near Tokawade. The driver of the bus, who was also found to be negligent, was also responsible for the compensation.

The accident left the victim, Mahesh Makhija, with severe injuries, including the amputation of his left hand from the arm. He claimed that he was working as a sales manager at Diageo India and earning ₹3,60,377 per month. The insurance firm initially denied the claim, stating that the driver did not have a valid license at the time of the accident. However, the MACT rejected this defense and held both the driver and the insurance company liable to compensate the victim.

The court assessed Mahesh’s future loss of income at 50% due to his 85% disability certificate, which reduced his net monthly income to ₹2,00,000. The court also awarded him ₹3,00,000 for pain and suffering and ₹50,000 for miscellaneous expenses. Considering his medical expenses, which included a ₹5,00,000 mediclaim, the court ordered the respondents to pay a total of ₹1,39,48,645 to Mahesh. The compensation amount takes into account his salary, medical bills, loss of future income, and other expenses.

The United India Insurance Company Limited has released a new notification for the recruitment of Apprenticeship Training in various disciplines. The company is inviting applications from eligible Engineering and Non-Engineering graduates who passed out in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 from specific regions, including Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Kerala, and Karnataka.

The recruitment process involves 105 vacancies, with 35 from Tamil Nadu, 5 from Puducherry, 30 from Karnataka, 25 from Kerala, 5 from Andhra Pradesh, and 5 from Telangana. To be eligible, candidates must have a degree in any discipline from a recognized university/institution, and not have undergone or be currently undergoing apprenticeship training or have one year of work experience.

The selected candidates will receive a monthly stipend of Rs. 9,000 and will undergo an apprenticeship training for a period of one year. The selection process will be based on shortlisting candidates based on their percentage of marks secured in the qualifying examinations.

The last date to apply is March 10, 2025, and candidates must submit their applications through the NATS 1.0 and NATS 2.0 web portal. The applications must be accompanied by all relevant and supporting documents.

The minimum age limit is 21 years, and the maximum age limit is 28 years. The duration of the training will be for a period of one year. The company will provide a stipend of Rs. 9,000 per month to the selected candidates.

The recruitment process is open to students from the specified regions, and interested candidates can apply through the official website. For any further queries, you can refer to the FAQs section.

A single judge of the Madras High Court has allowed a writ petition filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. (PIL) challenging a notice issued by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) to acquire its property for the construction of a metro station. The CMRL had initially planned to acquire the premises of the Arul Mighu Sri Rathina Vinayagar and Durgai Amman Temple for the station, but later announced that it would shift the station’s entrance to the petitioner’s building, United India Insurance Company’s new head office. However, the CMRL then issued a notice to the insurance company to show-cause why its property should not be acquired.

The high court observed that the acquisition of lands belonging to religious institutions is permissible, but that the notice issued by the CMRL offends Article 14 of the Constitution by violating the principle of promissory estoppel. The court also noted that the CMRL’s actions were premeditated and that the company had staged a “Hamlet” without the Prince of Denmark, meaning that the CMRL was aware of the potential consequences but did not take them into consideration.

The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the CMRL’s notice, allowing the CMRL to proceed with its original plan to construct the metro station within the temple premises. The court’s decision was delivered by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, who observed that the CMRL’s actions would benefit lakhs of people and would be a boon for the public.