Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Lakshmi on 17 January, 1990

United India Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Sukhiabai @ Ramsukhibai And Ors. on 7 May, 1991

Shri Khot cited also Madras High Court's D.B. decision in United India Insurance Co. v. Lakshmi but the law laid down therein is of no relevance to the controversy mooted. In that case, it was held that in case of an accident between two trucks, the Insurer had no liability for death of the owner of one of the trucks in which he was travelling even though there was negligence of the driver of that truck resulting in the accident and his employer's death. Because, Insurer's liability under Section 95(1) of the old Act was "third party liability" only.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The United India Insurance Company ... vs Mst. Sukhiabai And Ors. on 7 May, 1991

Shri Knot cited also Madras High Court's D.B. decision in United India Insurance Co. v. Lakshmi 1990 ACC CJ 390 : (AIR 1990 Madras 108) but the law laid down therein is of no relevance to the controversy mooted. In that case, it was held that in case of an accident between two trucks, the Insurer had no liability for death of the owner of one of the trucks in which he was travelling even though there was negligence of the driver of that truck resulting in the accident and his employer's death. Because, Insurer's liability Under Section 95(1) of the old Act was "third party liability" only.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Hemlata Sahu And Ors. vs Ramadhar And Anr. on 19 March, 1999

In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakshmi, AIR 1990 Mad. 108, the Madras High Court has held that the owner of the lorry or the insured having himself died in the accident, caused by his own driver, and there being no liability on his part or on the part of his legal representatives, towards any third party, the insurance company's liability does not at all arise.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 14 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mohiuddin Kureshi Alias Md. Moya And ... on 21 September, 1993

In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakshmi 1991 ACJ 239 (Karnataka), a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that the period of limitation of six months prescribed under Sub-section (3) of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, applies to an application claiming compensation on 'no fault liability' under Section 92-A of the Act.
Patna High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 15 - S B Sinha - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Chander Prabha Bhatt And Ors. on 28 March, 2005

"(3) ...As we could see from the expressions used in the section, it required a policy of insurance to cover any liability which may be incurred by the insured in respect of death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of use of the vehicle in a public place. There ought to have been a liability incurred by the insured to a third party. The terms of the policy of insurance issued, namely, Exh. P-l, being in accord with Section 95 (1) (b) (i) of the Act, the policy of insurance could cover only the liability of the insured to a third party. The purpose of the provision is to protect the interests of third parties who are involved in motor accidents. In order to fix liability on the insurance company, the liability must be first established against the insured. It is only in that case the liability of the insurance company would arise. The insurance company or the insurer is one party to the contract, the insured or the policyholder is another and the claims made by others in respect of negligent use of the vehicle would be claims by third parties. Thus, it is obvious that if any liability has not been incurred by the owner or the insured towards a third party, then that is not intended to be covered by the policy of insurance issued as per this provision. The language of the provision being what it is, plain in terms, the implications flowing therefrom are also plain and as such admit of no ambiguity. If there is no liability on the part of the owner of the vehicle or in other words the insured, nothing could be passed on to the insurance company to meet any such liability. The owner of the vehicle or in other words the insured must be first found to be liable to a third party, so that, that liability could be passed on to the insurance company."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - D Gupta - Full Document

Pinnaboyina Chittamma And Ors. vs B. Narasingarao And Ors. on 20 June, 2002

In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakshmi 1997 ACJ 489 (Kerala), the Division Bench of Kerala High Court held that an accident that took place in paddy field and in the absence of any evidence restricting or regulating the right of access by the members of the public to the said property, it was held that the accident had occurred in public place and the insurance company is liable for the payment of compensation.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pinnaboyina Chittamma And Ors. vs B. Narasingarao And Ors. on 20 June, 2002

39. The decision of Wellard case (4th cited supra), Cawley's case (13th cited supra) coupled with Indian decisions in Pandnrang's case (10th cited supra) of Bombay Full Bench and Lakshmi's case (15th cited supra) of Calcutta Division Bench fully support the view that even though the accident had taken place in the factory premises, yet it is a public place falling within the definition of Section 2(m) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 32 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Darshan Kaur Etc. on 11 August, 2000

In United India Insurance Company Limited v. Lakshmi, 1990 A.C.J. 390, Madras High Court held that the owner of the lorry or the insured having himself died in the accident, caused by his own driver and there being no liability on his part or on the part of his legal representatives, towards any third party, the insurance company's liability does not at all arise.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 11 - M L Singhal - Full Document
1   2 Next