Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Cholleti Bharatamma & Ors on 12 October, 2007

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Vinod Kumar And Another on 1 July, 2016

it was submitted that the Insurance Company was not liable. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC)wherein the plea was taken that the owner himself travel in the cabin of the vehicle and not with the goods so as to be covered under Section 147. However, in case the driver permits a passenger to travel in the tool box, he cannot escape from the liability that he was of negligent in driving the vehicle and moreover, in a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, rash or negligent driving is not to be proved and, therefore, this decision does not help the appellant.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M A Mir - Full Document

Mehjabin & Ors vs The New India Assurance Compan on 12 January, 2016

19.In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma this Court categorically held: (SCC p.433, paras 27-28 "27. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that from the aforementioned finding, it is evident that the respondent was traveling as the owner of the goods. We do not think that the said submission is correct. P.W.2, in his evidence, stated:
Patna High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Sarita Devi & Others vs Ashok Kumar Nagar & Others on 17 June, 2016

truck as a gratuitous passenger. Thus, it was submitted that the Insurance Company was not liable. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC)wherein the plea was taken that the owner himself travel in the cabin of the vehicle and not with the goods so as to be covered under Section 147. However, in case the driver permits a passenger to travel in the tool box, he cannot escape from the liability that he was of negligent in driving the vehicle and moreover, in a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, rash or negligent driving is not to be proved and, therefore, this decision does not help the appellant.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 7 - M A Mir - Full Document

Dinesh Kumar vs Puran Singh And Others on 5 August, 2016

"8. Coming to the second plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, a perusal of the reply filed by respondent No. 2, insurance company shows that they had only pleaded that the deceased was admittedly not employee of the insured and was traveling in the truck as a gratuitous passenger. Thus, it was submitted that the Insurance Company was not liable. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC)wherein the plea was taken that the owner himself travel in the cabin of the vehicle and not with the goods so as to be covered under Section 147. However, in case the driver permits a passenger to travel in the tool box, he cannot escape from the liability that he was negligent in driving the vehicle and moreover, in a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, rash or negligent driving is not to be proved and, therefore, this decision does not help the appellant.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - M A Mir - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Respondents on 7 July, 2016

10. On the other hand, Mr.Palsra would contend that once the deceased were proved to be travelling in the vehicle as owners of the goods, then the Insurance Company would automatically be liable to pay the compensation irrespective of where the deceased had been sitting and would further contend that this has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cholleti Bharatamma's case (supra) and, reliance is placed on the observations contained in paras 22 to 25 of the judgment which read thus:-
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Respondents on 7 July, 2016

10. On the other hand, Mr.Palsra would contend that once the deceased were proved to be travelling in the vehicle as owners of the goods, then the Insurance Company would automatically be liable to pay the compensation irrespective of where the deceased had been sitting and would further contend that this has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cholleti Bharatamma's case (supra) and, reliance is placed on the observations contained in paras 22 to 25 of the judgment which read thus:-
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Mohan Lal And Another on 24 June, 2016

"8. Coming to the second plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, a perusal of the reply filed by of respondent No. 2, insurance company shows that they had only pleaded that the deceased was admittedly not employee of the insured and was traveling in the truck as a gratuitous passenger. Thus, it was submitted that the Insurance Company was rt not liable. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC)wherein the plea was taken that the owner himself travel in the cabin of the vehicle and not with the goods so as to be covered under Section 147. However, in case the driver permits a passenger to travel in the tool box, he cannot escape from the liability that he was negligent in driving the vehicle and moreover, in a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, rash or negligent driving is not to be proved and, therefore, this decision does not help the appellant.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - M A Mir - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Respondents on 7 July, 2016

10. On the other hand, Mr.Palsra would contend that once the deceased were proved to be travelling in the vehicle as owners of the goods, then the Insurance Company would automatically be liable to pay the compensation irrespective of where the deceased had been sitting and would further contend that this has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cholleti Bharatamma's case (supra) and, reliance is placed on the observations contained in paras 22 to 25 of the judgment which read thus:-
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Harjit Singh vs Rameshwar Dass And Others on 5 July, 2016

In Sanjeev Kumar Samrat Vs. National Insurance Company Limited (2014) 14 SCC 243, the Supreme Court, while referring to an earlier judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma (2008) 1 SCC 423, observed that reference to any injury to "any person" in Section 147 (1)(b), would only mean a third party and "not a passenger traveling in a goods carriage, whether gratuitous or otherwise".
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A R Singh - Full Document

Branch Manager, New India Assurance ... vs Baby Devi & Ors on 5 April, 2016

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there happens to be delay of six months and one day in filing of appeal and on account thereof, I.A. No. 6070/2014 has been filed to condone the delay for the purpose of proper adjudication. It has also been submitted that tractor was insured for the purpose of agriculture work only and not for any other activity much less for commercial purpose. In likewise manner, it has also been submitted that the deceased‟s presence over the tractor was no way connected with the agriculture work rather he was a gratuitous passenger and his presence was connected with commercial activities adopted by the owner in contravention of the terms of policy, therefore, the insurance company could not be held responsible. To substantiate such plea, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon M.A. No.64 of 2007 (National Insurance Company Ltd v. Laxminia Kuer & Ors) order dated 28.04.2010, Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarapp v. C.S. 4 Gurushanthappa reported in (2010) 8 SCC 620, M.A. No. 251 of 2012 (Divisional Manager v. Rameshwar Yadav & Ors), order dated 25.03.2014, National Insurance Co.Ltd v. Cholleti Bharatamma reported in [2007] 7 Supreme(SC)265. It has also been pleaded that after all, it is the owner who could be held responsible for the act committed by his servant, hence be directed to pay the amount instead of appellant.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - A K Trivedi - Full Document
1   2 Next