Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 218 (0.74 seconds)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Methi And Ors. on 14 January, 2002

The Act contemplates the possibility of the policy of insurance undertaking liability to third parties, providing such a contract between the insurer and the insured, that is, the person who effected the policy, as would make the company entitled to recover the whole or part of the amount it has paid to the third party from the insured. The insurer thus acts as security for the third party with respect to its realising damages for the injuries suffered, but vis-a-vis the insured, the company does not undertake that liability or undertake it to a limited extent. It is in view of such a possibility that various conditions are laid down in the policy. Such conditions, however, are effective only between the insured and the company and have to be ignored when considering the liability of the company to the third parties. This is mentioned prominently in the policy itself and is mentioned under the heading 'avoidance of certain terms and rights of recovery', as well as in the form of 'An Important Notice', in the Schedule to the policy. The avoidance clause says that nothing in the policy or any endorsement thereon shall affect the right of any person indemnified by the policy or any other person to recover an amount under or by virtue of the provisions of the Act. It also provides that the insured will repay to the company all sums paid by it which the company would not have been liable to pay but for the said provisions of the Act. The 'Important Notice' mentions that any payment made by the company by reason of wider terms appearing in the certificate in order to comply with the Act is recoverable from the insured, and refers to the avoidance clause.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - H R Panwar - Full Document

Oriental Fire And General Insurance Co. vs Firdos Pervez Mysorewala And Ors. on 10 April, 2003

However, the Supreme Court noticed the avoidance clause of the policy, and after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in (i) New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani, AIR 1964 SC 1736, (ii) Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar, 1998 (3) SCC 744, (iii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai (Smt.) and Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 539, and (iv) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore and Ors., 1988 (1) SCC 626, held that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited was liable to pay the entire award amount to the claimant and upon making such payment, the Insurance Company was entitled to recover the excess amount from the insured by executing the award against the insured to the extent of such excess as per Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 8 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Veerappa And Ors. on 29 July, 2002

6. The Supreme Court in the cases reported in New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani 1958-65 ACJ 559 (SC) and G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , after interpretation of the relevant provisions of the repealed M.V. Act has observed that on technical interpretation of the provisions of beneficial legislation of the Motor Vehicles Act, which enactment provides for social security measure to either the victims or to the dependants of the victims of the accident or to the insured persons their claim that they are third parties and, therefore, the same cannot be defeated. In this regard the Apex Court in the case referred to supra after interpreting the provisions of Sections 94, 95, 96, 97 and 99 of Chapter VIII of the repealed M.V. Act of 1939 and also Sections 146, 147, 150 and 157 of the M.V. Act of 1988 at para 15 of the judgment has laid down the law holding that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation to third parties as the insurance of motor vehicles also covers against third party risk. Further, the provisions of Section 145(g) of the M.V. Act of 1988 has comprehensively defined as to 'who is third party'. The third party includes 'Government'. By a careful reading of the above said comprehensive definition provision of the Act the third parties are also included in the policy of the vehicle insured and, therefore, it makes very clear that persons who will be travelling in the motor vehicle even if it is beyond maximum number of 6+1 persons will be travelling in the heavy goods vehicle, which is contrary to the Rule 100 of Rules they have to be treated as third parties and the insurer is liable to pay compensation amount to them when they prefer claim on account of suffering either bodily injuries or death of the victims or dependants of the victims of road accident of the vehicle irrespective of the fact of terms and conditions of the policy issued to the vehicle insured.
Karnataka High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - V G Gowda - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next