Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Usha Aggarwal vs Parmod Kumar Gupta & Ors. on 27 November, 2013

Mohammed Aslam @ Aslam vs Kumar .B on 8 December, 2015

The learned counsel for petitioner has also relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High court reported in (Usha Aggarwal Vs. Parmod Kumar Gupta and others) 2014 ACJ 2590, in which the cheque issued towards premium was dishonoured and insurance company informed the insured and cancelled the cover note much before the date of accident. In the said decision, Hon'ble High Court has held that, as per Section 147(5) and 149(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, the liability of insurance company in damages to third party risks continues for the entire period covered by the policy in spite of cheque issued towards payment of premium being dishonoured and consequent cancellation of policy. The insurance company issued the policy upon receipt of cheque towards premium in contravention of the provision of Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act and policy of insurance being public interest concept prevails over the interest of the insurance company and insurance company directed to pay SCCH-11 25 MVC.NO.2932/2014 compensation and then recover the same from owner of offending vehicle.
Bangalore District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Radhakrishnan vs S.Mani on 5 August, 2019

The Insurance Company also relied upon the Judgment in the case of United India Insurance Company limited Vs. Laxmamma and others reported in (2012) 5 SCC 234 and the Judgment in Usha Aggarwal Vs. Parmod Kumar Gupta & others reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 45 (Del.) 4 However, CMA No. 1767 of 2012 has been filed by the claimant/ S.Radhakrishnan seeking enhancement of compensation amount by contending that at the time of accident, he was aged 46 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- on self employment. However, due to the accident, his left below knee was amputated and that he had totally lost his earning capacity. Even though the Tribunal awarded Rs.9,76,000/- as compensation, the appellant/claimant would contend that the Tribunal did not award any amount towards future medical expenses besides that the amount awarded under various head such as Transportation, pain and suffering are meager. In effect, it is contended that the Tribunal ought to have treated the injuries suffered by the claimant as functional disability and awarded more amount as compensation towards future prospects. http://www.judis.nic.in5 C.M.A.Nos. 1767, 2153 and 2154 of 2012 5 The core issue in all the appeals is that whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation or not. The Insurance company has filed counter statement before the Tribunal alleging that the owner of the vehicle viz., S.Mani approached the office of the Insurance Company at Bhagwathi Palace, II floor, J Blok, 13, III Avenue, Annanagar, Chennai 600102 on 13.04.2007 and tendered a cheque bearing No. 364900 drawn on Indian Bank, Kolathur Branch for Rs.14,234/-, being consideration premium for getting insurance coverage for his vehicle TN-05-U-3081 and believing the transaction to be true and in the normal course, the said office issued the policy OG 08 1506 00000208 for the vehicle TB-05-U-3081.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1