Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs M Sureshappa on 27 May, 2011

M/S Reliance General Ins. Co Ltd., vs Jayaramu on 4 March, 2020

11. The facts in the present case on hand are similar to the facts in the above reported judgment. Relying on the said judgment the learned counsel for the appellant would submit to this Court that though the initial liability is on the insurance company to pay the compensation, the insurance company is entitled to recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that there is breach of policy conditions.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., vs Raju Sarvodaya @ Raju S/O Shankarrao on 12 December, 2013

In M.Sureshappa's case referred to supra also the vehicle involved was an auto rickshaw and the same was driven beyond the limits permitted under the permit. It is under those circumstances, this Court held that there has been violation of permit condition, as such the insurer is not liable. However, in the case on hand, even according to the insurer the vehicle in question was not covered by a permit. Therefore, it is not a case of violation of permit conditions. On the other hand, according to the insurer it was a case of plying the vehicle without a permit, which may be an offence under the M.V.Act. As already 18 noticed above, if the vehicle was being taken for repair without carrying any person, there is no necessity to have permit.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., vs Ashok @ Ashok Ram S/O Shadir Ram @ Sahadev ... on 12 December, 2013

In M.Sureshappa's case referred to supra also the vehicle involved was an auto rickshaw and the same was driven beyond the limits permitted under the permit. It is under those circumstances, this Court held that there has been violation of permit condition, as such the insurer is not liable. However, in the case on hand, even according to the insurer the vehicle in question was not covered by a permit. Therefore, it is not a case of violation of permit conditions. On the other hand, according to the insurer it was a case of plying the vehicle without a permit, which may be an offence under the M.V.Act. As already 18 noticed above, if the vehicle was being taken for repair without carrying any person, there is no necessity to have permit.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., vs Sugrayya @ Sugurayya Swamy S/O Hampayya ... on 12 December, 2013

In M.Sureshappa's case referred to supra also the vehicle involved was an auto rickshaw and the same was driven beyond the limits permitted under the permit. It is under those circumstances, this Court held that there has been violation of permit condition, as such the insurer is not liable. However, in the case on hand, even according to the insurer the vehicle in question was not covered by a permit. Therefore, it is not a case of violation of permit conditions. On the other hand, according to the insurer it was a case of plying the vehicle without a permit, which may be an offence under the M.V.Act. As already 18 noticed above, if the vehicle was being taken for repair without carrying any person, there is no necessity to have permit.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., vs M. Bheemamma @ Beesamma W/O Nagareddy on 12 December, 2013

In M.Sureshappa's case referred to supra also the vehicle involved was an auto rickshaw and the same was driven beyond the limits permitted under the permit. It is under those circumstances, this Court held that there has been violation of permit condition, as such the insurer is not liable. However, in the case on hand, even according to the insurer the vehicle in question was not covered by a permit. Therefore, it is not a case of violation of permit conditions. On the other hand, according to the insurer it was a case of plying the vehicle without a permit, which may be an offence under the M.V.Act. As already 18 noticed above, if the vehicle was being taken for repair without carrying any person, there is no necessity to have permit.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., vs D. Narasappa S/O Ranganna on 12 December, 2013

In M.Sureshappa's case referred to supra also the vehicle involved was an auto rickshaw and the same was driven beyond the limits permitted under the permit. It is under those circumstances, this Court held that there has been violation of permit condition, as such the insurer is not liable. However, in the case on hand, even according to the insurer the vehicle in question was not covered by a permit. Therefore, it is not a case of violation of permit conditions. On the other hand, according to the insurer it was a case of plying the vehicle without a permit, which may be an offence under the M.V.Act. As already 18 noticed above, if the vehicle was being taken for repair without carrying any person, there is no necessity to have permit.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., vs Smt. Shahzadi Begum W/O Mohamed ... on 12 December, 2013

In M.Sureshappa's case referred to supra also the vehicle involved was an auto rickshaw and the same was driven beyond the limits permitted under the permit. It is under those circumstances, this Court held that there has been violation of permit condition, as such the insurer is not liable. However, in the case on hand, even according to the insurer the vehicle in question was not covered by a permit. Therefore, it is not a case of violation of permit conditions. On the other hand, according to the insurer it was a case of plying the vehicle without a permit, which may be an offence under the M.V.Act. As already 18 noticed above, if the vehicle was being taken for repair without carrying any person, there is no necessity to have permit.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri N. Purushotham Rao vs Sri Muddappa on 6 February, 2015

27. The learned counsel for the petitioner while cross examination of the RW1 has suggested that there is a function at Anchepalya, thereby the police have diverted the vehicle through Hesaraghaata, if that is nothing is prevented to the petitioner to examine any independent witness to prove the said facts. Now the question arises whether diverting of the route by the police and if any accident occurred, whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if the said facts is not comes within the purview of Section 66(3) M.V. Act. If the facts comes within the purview of Section 66(3) of M.V. Act then only the owner can ply the vehicle, but in the instant case it is not the facts as per Section 66(3) of the M.V. Act. So, it is clear that the owner has plied the vehicle in the place where the vehicle was not holding the permit, that itself is 23 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.1954/2013 clear that the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the policy conditions. Therefore, this court drawn its attention on the decision reported in 2011 AAC 3034 (KAR) in between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. M. Sureshappa and another in which it is held that;
Bangalore District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next