Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing P.T. Moidu vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 3 August, 2007

Kunjukuttanpillai vs Muhammad Hussain on 26 October, 2009

occurring in Sec.3 and "is not duly licensed" occurring in Sec.149 (2)(a)(ii) and it was held that it is not sufficient that the insurer proves that the driver of the offending vehicle had no "effective license" on the date of the accident but it has to be proved that he was either not duly licensed or was disqualified from holding a license or, other circumstances stated in Sec.149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act existed and further, that the mere fact of there being no M.A.C.A.Nos.1391 of 2011, 103, 942, 943, 1041, 1534, 1536, 1541, 1655, 1722 and 1797 of 2012, 567 and 1471 of 2013 22 effective license, in the sense that the driver was not authorised to drive a transport/goods vehicle on the date of the accident by itself, is not sufficient unless the insurer is also able to prove that the breach of the condition of driving license is/are so fundamental as is/are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. That is what the Division Benches of this Court have pointed out in P.T Moidu Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and in M.A.C.A.No.105 of 2012. In other words, that there was no authorisation/badge to drive a transport/goods vehicle on the date of the accident may amount to an infraction of Sec.3 of the Act opening the person concerned to prosecution under the relevant provisions of the Act but, in the absence of proof that absence of authorisation/badge has contributed to the cause of accident, the insurer is not absolved of its liability to the third parties or, its duty to indemnify the insured.
Kerala High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

Parappanangadi Motor Transport ... vs The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd on 27 December, 2008

I cannot also follow the decision in M.A.C.A.No. 2366 of 2010 (supra) since it is not clear how the driving license (in that case) was not valid, the decision in P.T.Moidu v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (supra) was not considered, the consequence of absence of a badge in the light of the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (supra) was not considered, the Division Bench did not doubt the Bench decisions in P.T.Moidu v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., & Ors.(supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Balakrishnan (supra) and as the decision in M.A.C.A. No. 2366 of 2010 does not lay down any law. The decision in M.A.C.A. No.2366 of 2010 has to be confined to the facts of that case".
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - T R Nair - Full Document

Shri Habil Bhatt vs Shri Devender Singh Rawat on 19 August, 2014

In P.T. Moidu v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2008 Ker 43 it was held that merely because the driver of the vehicle who was duly licensed was not having a badge would not enable the insurance company to shirk its liability as per Section 149 of the Act and the insurance company also failed to prove that the insured had committed a fundamental breach of the policy conditions resulting in the accident. Thus the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are held jointly and severally liable. No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent No.3.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

At Present vs Shri Devender Singh Rawat on 19 August, 2014

In P.T. Moidu v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2008 Ker 43 it was held that merely because the driver of the vehicle who was duly licensed was not having a badge would not enable the insurance company to shirk its liability as per Section 149 of the Act and the insurance company also failed to prove that the insured had committed a fundamental breach of the policy conditions resulting in the accident. Thus the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are held jointly and severally liable. No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited being the insurance company in its reply had admitted that the vehicle bearing registration No. DL­1PB­4344 was insured with the company vide policy No.31060031120100002493 valid from 12.07.2012 to 11.07.2013.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

H/No. 265 vs Shri Devender Singh Rawat on 19 August, 2014

In P.T. Moidu v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2008 Ker 43 it was held that merely because the driver of the vehicle who was duly licensed was not having a badge would not enable the insurance company to shirk its liability as per Section 149 of the Act and the insurance company also failed to prove that the insured had committed a fundamental breach of the policy conditions resulting in the accident. Thus the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are held jointly and severally liable. No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited being the insurance company in its reply had admitted that the vehicle bearing registration No. DL­1PB­4344 was insured with the company vide policy No.31060031120100002493 valid from 12.07.2012 to 11.07.2013.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

At Present:­ vs Shri Devender Singh Rawat on 19 August, 2014

In P.T. Moidu v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2008 Ker 43 it was held that merely because the driver of the vehicle who was duly licensed was not having a badge would not enable the insurance company to shirk its liability as per Section 149 of the Act and the insurance company also failed to prove that the insured had committed a fundamental breach of the policy conditions resulting in the accident. Thus the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are held jointly and severally liable. No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited being the insurance company in its reply had admitted that the vehicle bearing registration No. DL­1PB­4344 was insured with the company vide policy No.31060031120100002493 valid from 12.07.2012 to 11.07.2013. There is no evidence on behalf of respondent No.3 to show that there was any violation of the rules and terms of policy by the respondents and in fact the duly verified documents regarding the offending vehicle were placed on record by the IO with the DAR. Hence, the respondent No.3 being the insurance company in respect of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2. The respondent No.3 being the insurer is directed to deposit the award amount in the court by way of crossed cheque/ demand draft within 30 days of the passing of the award with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the DAR till its realization failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shaji vs Pradeesh on 9 May, 2013

20. A Division Bench of this Court in 2007(4) KHC 385 (P.T. Moidu vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. and others) observed that absence of valid badge to drive a commercial vehicle will attract penal consequences, but, it cannot be a ground to deny statutory liability to third party compensation. The right of recovery reserved in favour of the insurance Company by the Tribunal after satisfying the liability towards claimant was intercepted by the Bench; also making an observation that, at the time of the accident, according to the appellant/insured, though the vehicle involved was having a taxi permit, it was actually being used by the owner for travel of his family (private).
Kerala High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 9 - P R Menon - Full Document

Shri Vinod Prasad vs Shri Sunil Kumar on 23 January, 2016

In P.T. Moidu v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2008 Ker 43 it was held that merely because the driver of the vehicle who was duly licensed was not having a badge would not enable the insurance company to shirk its liability as per Section 149 of the Act and the insurance company also failed to prove that the insured had committed a fundamental breach of the policy conditions resulting in the accident. Similar would be the position in respect of the fitness certificate.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next