Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 94 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Rishi Pal Singh vs New India Assurance Co Ltd on 4 December, 2020

Pehyush Gupta vs Ashwani Kumar And Ors on 25 August, 2023

In this context, it is appropriate to take note of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case titled, „Rishi Pal Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. and „Pappu and others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another‟ (supra). In view of the judgments passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the Insurance Company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorized person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving license and the onus would shift on the Insurance Company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was MA No. 159/2018 c/w CCROS No. 19/2018 5 authorized by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving license at the relevant time. In the instant case, the appellant, who happens to be a father of respondent No. 5, never appeared as a witness and also the respondent No. 5 did not appear as a witness before the Tribunal to prove that the respondent No. 5 was having a valid driving license. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the finding returned by the Tribunal that the offending vehicle was being driven by the driver, without having a valid driving license.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R Oswal - Full Document

Jatinder Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 20 January, 2026

11. There is no evidence on record or reason to believe that the incident took place in a running vehicle. As such, it appears established on record and completely plausible that only after the incident of fire took place when the vehicle was . stationary, the driver as a spontaneous decision and showing the presence of mind, and risking his own life, took away the vehicle to some open filed only 300-400 yards away to avoid the larger tragedy or loss. In other words, we agree with the insured that the accident took place when the vehicle was stationary. Therefore, we also agree that once it is averred by the insured that the accident took place in a stationary vehicle, supported by circumstantial and other contemporaneous evidence, and which is not contradicted by any positive evidence by the insurer, the question of validity of the license or the the fake nature of the license or the absence of endorsement in the license for carrying hazardous goods all become irrelevant andl merely academic in view of the fact that the accident and loss to the stationery or parked vehicle does not at all have any connection with the driver, his license or his skill. The incident or the fact that the driver admittedly drove the vehicle for 300-400 yards is not only after the event of accident, it was a spontaneous act of presence of mind of the driver which was a loss-mitigation effort after the accident and hence not material for deciding the violation of policy conditions. Otherwise also, the repudiation, including the ground of endorsement for driving vehicle with hazardous goods, is fundamentally based on the fact that the license of the driver Chanchai Singh was found to be fake or forged. This aspect is duly and fully covered Page 14 of 16 V in favour of the insured by decision of apex court in Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. (2022) SCC Online SC 2119.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jatinder Singh. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 20 January, 2026

11. There is no evidence on record or reason to believe that the incident took place in a running vehicle. As such, it appears established on record and completely plausible that only after the incident of fire took place when the vehicle was . stationary, the driver as a spontaneous decision and showing the presence of mind, and risking his own life, took away the vehicle to some open filed only 300-400 yards away to avoid the larger tragedy or loss. In other words, we agree with the insured that the accident took place when the vehicle was stationary. Therefore, we also agree that once it is averred by the insured that the accident took place in a stationary vehicle, supported by circumstantial and other contemporaneous evidence, and which is not contradicted by any positive evidence by the insurer, the question of validity of the license or the the fake nature of the license or the absence of endorsement in the license for carrying hazardous goods all become irrelevant andl merely academic in view of the fact that the accident and loss to the stationery or parked vehicle does not at all have any connection with the driver, his license or his skill. The incident or the fact that the driver admittedly drove the vehicle for 300-400 yards is not only after the event of accident, it was a spontaneous act of presence of mind of the driver which was a loss-mitigation effort after the accident and hence not material for deciding the violation of policy conditions. Otherwise also, the repudiation, including the ground of endorsement for driving vehicle with hazardous goods, is fundamentally based on the fact that the license of the driver Chanchai Singh was found to be fake or forged. This aspect is duly and fully covered Page 14 of 16 V in favour of the insured by decision of apex court in Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. (2022) SCC Online SC 2119.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jatinder Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 20 January, 2026

11. There is no evidence on record or reason to believe that the incident took place in a running vehicle. As such, it appears established on record and completely plausible that only after the incident of fire took place when the vehicle was . stationary, the driver as a spontaneous decision and showing the presence of mind, and risking his own life, took away the vehicle to some open filed only 300-400 yards away to avoid the larger tragedy or loss. In other words, we agree with the insured that the accident took place when the vehicle was stationary. Therefore, we also agree that once it is averred by the insured that the accident took place in a stationary vehicle, supported by circumstantial and other contemporaneous evidence, and which is not contradicted by any positive evidence by the insurer, the question of validity of the license or the the fake nature of the license or the absence of endorsement in the license for carrying hazardous goods all become irrelevant andl merely academic in view of the fact that the accident and loss to the stationery or parked vehicle does not at all have any connection with the driver, his license or his skill. The incident or the fact that the driver admittedly drove the vehicle for 300-400 yards is not only after the event of accident, it was a spontaneous act of presence of mind of the driver which was a loss-mitigation effort after the accident and hence not material for deciding the violation of policy conditions. Otherwise also, the repudiation, including the ground of endorsement for driving vehicle with hazardous goods, is fundamentally based on the fact that the license of the driver Chanchai Singh was found to be fake or forged. This aspect is duly and fully covered Page 14 of 16 V in favour of the insured by decision of apex court in Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. (2022) SCC Online SC 2119.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jatinder Singh. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 20 January, 2026

11. There is no evidence on record or reason to believe that the incident took place in a running vehicle. As such, it appears established on record and completely plausible that only after the incident of fire took place when the vehicle was . stationary, the driver as a spontaneous decision and showing the presence of mind, and risking his own life, took away the vehicle to some open filed only 300-400 yards away to avoid the larger tragedy or loss. In other words, we agree with the insured that the accident took place when the vehicle was stationary. Therefore, we also agree that once it is averred by the insured that the accident took place in a stationary vehicle, supported by circumstantial and other contemporaneous evidence, and which is not contradicted by any positive evidence by the insurer, the question of validity of the license or the the fake nature of the license or the absence of endorsement in the license for carrying hazardous goods all become irrelevant andl merely academic in view of the fact that the accident and loss to the stationery or parked vehicle does not at all have any connection with the driver, his license or his skill. The incident or the fact that the driver admittedly drove the vehicle for 300-400 yards is not only after the event of accident, it was a spontaneous act of presence of mind of the driver which was a loss-mitigation effort after the accident and hence not material for deciding the violation of policy conditions. Otherwise also, the repudiation, including the ground of endorsement for driving vehicle with hazardous goods, is fundamentally based on the fact that the license of the driver Chanchai Singh was found to be fake or forged. This aspect is duly and fully covered Page 14 of 16 V in favour of the insured by decision of apex court in Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. (2022) SCC Online SC 2119.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sajjan Kanwar And Ors vs Gopal Ram And Ors on 4 October, 2023

6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that in case, this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellant- Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, then also, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4919/2022), decided on 26.7.2022) and this Court in Baksha Ram Vs. Ladu Singh & Ors (SBCMA No.626/2002), decided on 16.9.2019, if there was a gap in the renewal of driving license, then the Insurance Company is absolved from its liability, however, can be directed to pay and recover the award amount from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M G Vyas - Full Document

National Insurance Co Ltd vs Laxman Singh And Ors on 4 October, 2023

6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that in case, this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellant- Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, then also, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4919/2022), decided on 26.7.2022) and this Court in Baksha Ram Vs. Ladu Singh & Ors (SBCMA No.626/2002), decided on 16.9.2019, if there was a gap in the renewal of driving license, then the Insurance Company is absolved from its liability, however, can be directed to pay and recover the award amount from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M G Vyas - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next