Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (2.23 seconds)
Documents citing Bhagwandas And Anr. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 30 June, 1989

Krishni And Ors. vs Amar Nath And Ors. on 4 March, 1996

In Bhagwandas v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1990 ACJ 495 (MP), again a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when the driver of truck allowed some persons to travel in the truck by collecting fare and it overturned resulting in the death of two persons and bodily injuries to others travelling in it, insurance company was liable despite policy providing limitation as to use for conveyance of passengers for hire or reward and the plea of the insurance company was negatived. The undisputed facts of this case were that appellant, a licensed driver, was driving the truck in question with a load and five labourers when he stopped the truck and picked up a dozen of persons including deceased/injured persons after recovering fare from them. They were carried on the top of the load in the truck when the owner of the truck was not present. It was rash/negligent driving of the truck by driver which resulted in the accident in question and the death of Phoola, Prabhu and Rajuka and injuries to Ram Parshad claimant. Thus, it is clear that the truck in question was being used for conveyance of passengers for hire or reward, a user expressly not covered by the policy, which user also contravened the provisions of Rule 111 of M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1974. While dismissing the appeal of the appellants and allowing cross-objections of the claimants and thereby holding the insurance company liable for payment of compensation. Relevant paras of this judgment are to the following effect:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - A K Goel - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Bimla Devi And Ors. on 8 September, 1995

10. The respondents drew assistance from New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani 1958-65 ACJ 559 (SC); Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. 1977 ACJ 343 (SC); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathibai Chaturabhuj 1982 ACJ 153 (Gujarat); Narcinva V. Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins 1985 ACJ 397 (SC); Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan 1987 ACJ 411 (SC); Shingara Ram v. Balak Ram Walia 1988 ACJ 176 (HP); Bhagwandas v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1990 ACJ 495 (MP); Bhagwan Das v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1991 ACJ 1137 (MP); and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Puni Devi 1995 ACJ 486 (HP).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Puni Devi And Ors. on 28 December, 1994

Co. Ltd. 1989 ACJ 1078 (SC); Bhagwan Das v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1991 ACJ 1137 (MP); Bhagwandas v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1990 ACJ 495 (MP); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlaben 1993 ACJ 673 (Gujarat); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ansuya 1989 ACJ 400 (AP) and New India Assurance Co; Ltd. v. Kamalabai 1994 ACJ 519 (Bombay), are quite-justified.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - L S Panta - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sukha Devi And Ors. on 2 March, 1995

20. The submission of Mr. K.D. Sood based on decisions like Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan 1987 ACJ 411 (SC); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satyanath Hazarika 1989 ACJ 685 (Gauhati); Bhagwandas v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1990 ACJ 495 (MP), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Usha Rani 1990 ACJ 785 (HP); Bhagwan Das v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1991 ACJ 1137 (MP); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlaben 1993 ACJ 673 (Gujarat); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamalabai 1994 ACJ 519 (Bombay); and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Puni Devi 1995 ACJ 486 (HP), are quite justified. The crux of these decisions is that insurance company is liable for the payment of compensation.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 4 - L S Panta - Full Document

Sheela vs Deepak Verma on 21 February, 2019

''5. In the present case case, the tribunal has held that the Insurance Co. is liable to payment of compensation as the alleged breach of condition of policy was not within the knowledge of the owner. The claims tribunal has found that in the present case the tractor was registered only for agricultural purpose and there is no evidence on record to show that the passengers were carried in the said tractor trolley within the knowledge of the owner and thus the owner of the vehicle has not committed breach of any policy condition. For this preposition the Claims Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the 9 case of Bhagwandas vs. National Insurance Company reported in 1991 ACJ 1137.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Lachhmi Devi And Ors. on 8 September, 1995

10. The respondents drew assistance from New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani 1958-65 ACJ 559 (SC); Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. 1977 ACJ 343 (SC); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathibai Chaturabhuj 1982 ACJ 153 (Gujarat); Narcinva V. Karnat v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins 1985 ACJ 397 (SC); Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan 1987 ACJ 411 (SC); Shingara Ram v. Balak Ram Walia 1988 ACJ 176 (HP); Bhagwandas v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1990 ACJ 495 (MP); Bhagwan Das v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1991 ACJ 1137 (MP); and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Puni Devi 1995 ACJ 486 (HP).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 7 - S N Phukan - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gangabai And Ors. on 16 August, 1990

4. In my opinion, the aforesaid cases relied on by Mr. Bansal have no application to the present case, for the reason that the settled view of this Court is that Section 92-A is not retrospective in its operation and will not apply to pending cases. [See Division Bench decision in Karuram v. Omprakash 1989 ACJ 941 (MP) and Shamsher Khan v. M.P. Electricity Board 1988 ACJ 394 (MP), though a different view has been taken subsequently by a Division Bench of this Court in Bhagwandas v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. . Against that decision Special Leave Petition Nos. 14593-94 of 1989 were filed by the insurance company, wherein the Apex Court accepted the submission that in view of the fact that the accident took place prior to insertion of Section 92-A into the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the High Court had no justification to refer to that provision for fixing liability for the compensation on the insurer.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gangabai And Ors. on 16 August, 1990

4. In my opinion, the aforesaid cases relied on by Mr. Bansal have no application to the present case, for the reason that the settled view of this court is that Section 92-A is not retrospective in its operation and will not apply to pending cases. [See Division Bench decision in Karuram v. Omprakash 1989 ACJ 941 (MP) and Shamsher Khan v. M.P. Electricity Board 1988 ACJ 394 (MP), though a different view has been taken subsequently by a Division Bench of this court in Bhagwandas v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1990 ACJ 495 (MP)]. Against that decision Special Leave Petition Nos. 14593-94 of 1989 were filed by the insurance company, wherein the Apex Court accepted the submission that in view of the fact that the accident took place prior to insertion of Section 92-A into the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the High Court had no justification to refer to that provision for fixing liability for the compensation on the insurer.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next