Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Ishwar Singh Rathore on 15 January, 2015

Branch Manager, United India Insurance ... vs Rambaran Yadav on 18 September, 2024

"8. From the above conditions, it is very much clear that the policy will not be applicable in case the vehicle is used for transporting the passengers. In the present case, the vehicle has been used for transporting the passengers and that too in a large number. Therefore, it is not a case of marginal infringement of a condition, rather it is a gross and flagrant violation of the condition of the policy. This is a clear-cut breach of fundamental condition of the policy and therefore, the claim under the policy cannot be accepted by the Insurance Company. The contract of insurance is a commercial contract like any other contract and its terms and conditions are binding on both the parties. The judgment of this Commission relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. G. Velkumar, (supra), G.Siddesh Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ishwar Singh Rathore (supra) are applicable in the present case and clearly the specific condition laid down in the policy has been violated and therefore, the claim under the policy is not payable.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Gobbaka Eswara Rao & Anr. on 28 November, 2018

8.      Coming to the first question of overloading, it is seen that the judgment of National Commission relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Ishwar Singh Rathore (supra) is in respect of goods vehicle (truck) where 34 passengers were travelling as against the allowed capacity of three passengers only. Two cases cannot be compared and the  decision of the National Commission is not relevant for the present case. In the present case, the overloading is in respect of the passenger vehicle where 15 passengers  are alleged to have been travelling instead of capacity of 12 passengers.  The learned counsel for the complainant did not argue anything on the point of overloading during the arguments. It seems that the complainant does not have a proper defence for the allegation of overloading. Though the overloading is in respect of only  three extra passengers, the condition of the policy has been violated.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Preman M.P. on 18 November, 2019

8.      From the above conditions, it is very much clear that the policy will not be applicable in case the vehicle is used for transporting the passengers.  In the present case, the vehicle has been used for transporting the passengers and that too in a large number.  Therefore, it is not a case of marginal infringement of a condition, rather it is a gross and flagrant violation of the condition of the policy.  This is a clear-cut breach of fundamental condition of the policy and therefore, the claim under the policy cannot be accepted by the Insurance Company.  The contract of insurance is a commercial contract like any other contract and its terms and conditions are binding on both the parties.  The judgment of this Commission relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. G. Velkumar, (supra), G.Siddesh Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ishwar Singh Rathore (supra) are applicable in the present case and clearly the specific condition laid down in the policy has been violated and therefore, the claim under the policy is not payable.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Health Sunetuay vs Kritender Sharma on 22 November, 2021

8. From the above conditions, it is very much clear that the policy will not be applicable in case the vehicle is used for transporting the passengers. In the present case, the vehicle has been used for transporting the passengers and that too in a large number. Therefore, it is not a case of marginal infringement of a condition, rather it is a gross and flagrant violation of the condition of the policy. This is a clear-cut breach of fundamental condition of the policy and therefore, the claim under the policy cannot be accepted by the Insurance Company. The contract of insurance is a commercial contract like any other contract and its terms and conditions are binding on both the parties. The judgment of this Commission relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. G. Velkumar, (supra), G. Siddesh Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ishwar Singh Rathore (supra) are applicable in the present case and clearly the specific condition laid down in the policy has been violated and therefore, the claim under the policy is not payable.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Ram Prasad Khunte on 5 November, 2015

20- Åij foospuk ds ifjizs{; esa ;g Li"V gS fd ftl le; nq?kZVuk dkfjr gqvk ml le; pkyd uan jke lksuh ds ikl dsoy gYdk eksVj ;ku pykus ds fy, MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal FkkA LGV (Light Goods Vehicle) pykus ds fy, MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal ds laca/k esa dksbZ i`"Bkadu mlds MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal esa ugha FkkA bl izdkj nq?kZVuk fnukad dks pkyd uan jke lksuh ds ikl oS/k ,oa izHkkoh MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal ugha FkkA 21- bl izdj.k esa vihykFkhZ@vukosnd ba';ksjsal daiuh dh vksj ls nkok fujLr djus ds fy, ;g Hkh vk/kkj fy;k x;k gS fd iz'uk/khu okgu LGV (Light Goods Vehicle) Fkk vkSj mlesa dqy 02 O;fDr;ksa ds cSBus ds fy, izkf/kd`r fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj mlds LFkku ij nq?kZVuk ds le; okgu esa 24 O;fDr;kasa dks cSBkdj okgu dk pkyu fd;k tk jgk Fkk tks fd ikWfylh 'krksZa dk ?kksj mYya?ku gS vkSj blfy, vekud (Non Standard Basis) vk/kkj ij Hkh {kfriwfrZ ugha fnykbZ tk ldrh gS vkSj chek diauh us tks nkok dks fujLr fd;k gS mlesa fdlh izdkj dh lsok esa deh ugha gSA 22- mRrjoknh@ifjoknh us tks lfVZfQdsV vkWQ jftLVªs'ku izLrqr fd;k gS mlesa Hkh okgu dks LGV (Light Goods Vehicle) crk;k gS vkSj cSBus dh {kerk 1$1 vafdr gSA mRrjoknh@ifjoknh us eksVj ba';ksjsal lfVZfQdsV de ikWfylh 'ksM~;wy izLrqr fd;k gS ftlesa okgu dk jftLVªs'ku dzekad&lh-th- 13 Mh 3416 vkSj okgu ds izdkj esa eSDl fidvi mYysf[kr gS vkSj mlesa cSBus dh {kerk 2$1 mYysf[kr gSA bl izdkj Li"V gS fd tks okgu Fkk og eky okgu Fkk vkSj mlesa MªkbZOgj feykdj 03 O;fDr;ksa ds cSBus ds laca/k esa chek fd;k x;k FkkA vihykFkhZ@vukosnd // 16 // ba';ksjsal daiuh dh vksj ls Jh eqds'k xks;y buosLVhxsVj dh fjiksVZ ¼,usD'pj&1½ izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ml fjiksVZ esa iqfyl fjiksVZ vkSj nLrkost ds vk/kkj ij ;g crk;k x;k gS fd fidvi okgu esa xuifr lrukeh] veksn ceZu] xksdqekj lnu pkSgku] calrhckbZ] uanjke lksuh] larks"k lrukeh] eksgu lrukeh] lksek: jke] xksfy;k vkfn 24 O;fDr lokj Fks ftlesa xuifr lrukeh] veksn ceZu] xksdqekj lnu pkSgku] calrhckbZ ,oa uanjke lksuh dks pksVsa vkbZ Fkh ,oa larks"k lrukeh] eksgu lrukeh] lksek: jke] xksfy;k dks ,DlhMsaV ls pksVsa vkus ij ekSds ij gh e`R;q gks xbZ gSA izFke lwpuk&i= dh izfrfyfi Hkh izdj.k esa is'k gS] blesa Hkh Åij of.kZr O;fDr;ksa dks pksVsa vkus ,oa e`R;q gksus dk mYys[k gSA uan jke lksuh dk c;ku Hkh izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vkSj ftlesa Hkh uan jke lksuh us ;g crk;k gS fd%& **okgu dzekad lh-th- 13 Mh 3416 dks pykrk gWaw fd fnukad&08-12- 2012 dks eSa dksrck ls vius ifjokj ds firkth djew HkkbZ pUnjke lksuh rFkk esjs thtkth ds ifjokj rFkk eksgYys ds cky&cPps lfgr 24 vkneh cSBdj esjs thtk ghjkyky pUnziqj esa cdjk ns jgk Fkk tks mlh ds fy;s lHkh yksx x;s FksA ogka ij cdjk cukdj [kkuk [kkdj okil 'kke dks vk jgs jk;x<+ ckck/kke jksM ds ikl lkeus rjQ ls fidvi dz-lh-th-13Mh 9419 ds pkyd rst ,oa ykijokgh iwoZd pykdj esjs fidvi dks Bksdj ekj fn;kA Bksdj ekus ls larks"k lskuh] lek:jke] eksgujke lksuh] x.kifr [kwaVs ,oa xqfy;k x<+ghu dk ,DlhMsUV ls QkSr gks x;k ,oa xkM+h esa cSBs esjs firkth] thtkth ,oa vU; yksxksa dks pksV yxk gSA fidvi dz-lh-th-13Mh 9419 ds pkyd rst ,oa ykijokgh iwoZd pykdj ,DlhMsUV djus ls QkSr gqvk gS rFkk pksVsa vkbZ gSA** bl izdkj pkyd uan jke lksuh us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd okgu esa nq?kZVuk ds le; 24 O;fDr cSBs gq, FksA blh izdkj ghjkyky ceZu] // 17 // djewjke ds c;ku ls Hkh Li"V gS fd okgu esa nq?kZVuk ds le; yxHkx 24 O;fDr cSBs gq, Fks vkSj bl izdkj mDr okgu esa ;kf=;ksa dk ifjogu fd;k tk jgk Fkk tcfd okgu esa cSBus dh {kerk 2$1 Fkk] mlds LFkku ij 24 ;kf=;ksa dks yk;k tk jgk FkkA 23- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ishwar Singh Rathore (Supra) esa ekuuh; jk"Vªh; vk;ksx }kjk ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd%& "6. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant's vehicle was truck with capacity of 1+2 including driver and it was insured with opposite party at the time of accident. Admittedly, it was a goods vehicle but at the time of accident 34/36 persons were travelling in the vehicle and on account of accident 29 persons died and 5 persons sustained injuries. Thus, there was clear violation of the terms and conditions of policy. As per policy and registration certificate of the vehicle only 3 persons were allowed to sit in the vehicle whereas at the time of accident 34/36 persons were travelling in the vehicle.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Gurjeet Singh on 8 August, 2017

8. Per contra, it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the accident has not taken place due to the persons travelling in the vehicle as on that day it was raining heavily and the vehicle slipped into the ditch due to slippery road resulting into injuries to one passenger. It was further argued that neither the report of the Surveyor indicates how many passengers were there in the vehicle at the time of accident nor this is the stand of the opposite parties in the written reply. Otherwise also three passengers are permitted being employees employed with the truck. There is no nexus between the taking place of accident and the carrying of passengers in the vehicle. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties in Ishwar Singh Rathore's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case there were 34/36 passengers and in the First Appeal No.484 of 2016 6 present case there is nothing on the record to prove as to how many persons were travelling at the time of accident. As the damage did not occur due to carrying of passengers, so on this ground claim cannot be repudiated. He relied upon following judgments:-
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1