Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Udaysinh Chandansinh Thakor And 2 Ors. on 7 February, 2006

Harshit Kanubhai Mehta vs M/S. Darshi Resevor Consultancy ... on 29 November, 2021

11. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Udaysinh Chandansinh Thakor & Ors. (supra), has observed that the Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial piece of Legislation and the procedure envisaged under it is a summary one. Strict rules of evidence are therefore not applicable to the proceedings under the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V M Pancholi - Full Document

Vanitaben Vasantbhai Munjat vs Amarshibhai Pramjibhai Munjat on 10 June, 2022

[18] So far as the other contention raised by the learned advocate for the Insurance Company with regard to proper pleadings is concerned, the same is not acceptable in view of the settled position of law that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and the procedure envisaged under it is a summary in nature and strict rule of evidence and pleadings are not applicable. Even otherwise, in the claim petition, it has already been averred that the deceased was a driver by vocation. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no specific pleading at all. [19] So far as reliance placed by the Insurance Company in the case of Bajaj Aliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) is concerned, in my considered opinion, facts of that case and facts of the case on hand are materially different. In the said case, the vehicle was a motor cycle owned by another person and was being driven by the deceased. Whereas, in the case on hand, the car was being driven by the deceased in a capacity of a driver, for which the Insurance Company has received premium. Thus, in my considered opinion, as stated above, the Insurance Company cannot be deleted or exonerated at interim stage without recording of any evidence.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Vikas Sharma vs Jagdish Prasad Ram on 29 August, 2009

10. Petitioner has relied upon (1) Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Anr Vs. Priyank, reported in 2000 ACJ 701; (2) Vrajesh Navnitlal Desai Vs. K. Bagyam & Anr, reported in 2006 ACJ 65; (3) DTC Vs.Meena Chaturvedi & Ors, reported in 2006 ACJ 406; (4) Helen C. 5 Rebello & Ors Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr, reported in 1999 ACJ 10; (5) O.I.C. Ltd Vs. Surendra Umrao & Anr, reported in II(2007) ACC 370(DB) (6) New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. K. Kanagasabapathy & Ors, reported in 2004 ACJ 1577; (7) United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Udaysinh Chandansinh Thakkor & ors , reported in 2006 ACJ, 2750; (8) Quraisha Bibi Vs. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd, reported in 2003 ACJ 1942; (9) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Nand Kishore & Ors, reported in 2002 ACJ 1564; (10) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr Vs. Devi Lal & Ors, reported in 1990 (I) TAC 672; (11) Pt. Parmanand Katara Vs. U.O.I & Ors, reported in AIR 1989 SC 2039; (12) Madamanchi Ramappa & Anr. Vs. Muthaluru Bojjappa, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1633; (13) Somnna & ors Vs. Subbarao & Anr., reported in AIR 1958 A.P.200; (14) United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Harminder Singh & Ors, reported in 2005 RAR 429; (15) Harminder Singh Vs. Gopal Singh & Ors, reported in 2005 RAR 280; (16) Prabhu Mehta Vs. Jagganath & Ors, reported in III(2004) ACC 82; (17) Amar Singh Vs. Samsher Khan & ors, reported in I (2007) ACC 408; (18)K.P. Muhammed Vs. Devassia & Ors, reported in III (2003) ACC 475; (19)Muthaiah Sekhar Vs. Nesamony TPT. Corporation Ltd & Anr, reported in II(1998) ACC 324(SC); (20) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Jabalpur Vs. Kans Ram & Ors, reported in 2001(3) TAC 382(M.P); (21) Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr Vs. Ganeshwar Sharma & Anr, reported in 2001(3) TAC 386(H.P.); (22) G. Pitchaiah Naidu Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board & Anr , reportedin 2001(2) TAC 86(AP); (23) Union of India Vs. 6 Oswald Anthony Athayde & Ors, reported in 2005(3) T.A.C.170(Bom.); (24)Rajasthan State Road Transport Cor.
Delhi District Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Praful Vashrambhai vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 12 April, 2007

6. It is true that in normal circumstances, the Tribunal while adjudicating the claim petition would rely upon the documents, which are produced and more particularly in the matter where the disability is to be proved after giving opportunity to cross-examine the said doctor by the opponents of the claim petition. However, the proceedings before the Tribunal are not strictly as that of the Civil Court and the powers of the Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim petition are summary power. Therefore, strict rules of evidence as applicable to the Civil Court while trying the suit may not apply in every case in the proceedings before the Tribunal. It may be that in normal circumstances, the Tribunal would be guided by the provisions of the law on the aspects of fact to be proved as per the Evidence Act, but such cannot be read as a sine qua non principle in every case. If the Tribunal finds that there is authenticated reliable material, it can be considered as a corroborative evidence on the aspects of disability, keeping in view the deposition of the claimant on the aspects of injury and gravity of such injury. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Udaysinh Chandansinh Thakor and Ors. and more particularly, the observations made at Para 7 of the said decision, wherein the view taken is that strict rules of evidence would not apply in the proceedings before the Tribunal so as to result into creating a situation of hyper-technical view.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - J Patel - Full Document
1