Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Radhey Shyam Agarwal And Anr. vs Gayatri Devi W/O Mahendra Prasad Das And ... on 22 November, 1996

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Anjana Shyam And Ors. on 28 December, 1999

In other claim petitions, the appellant insurance company has not filed similar applications and thereby no opportunity was given to the respondents to controvert the claims of the appellant insurance company before the Tribunals below. Under Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the defence which the appellant insurance company can raise is in respect of the breach of specified or enumerated conditions of the insurance policy one of which being, viz., if the vehicle allowed by permit has been used for a purpose other than the specified purpose. As noticed above, the purpose of permit of the ill-fated bus was to carry the passengers and, therefore, there is no violation of the statutory provisions by the insured and as such the defence that more than 42 + 2 passengers specified under the policy of insurance were carried at the time of the accident in the ill-fated bus is not available under Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act to the appellant insurance company against third party risk as the vehicle was not used for the purpose not authorised by the permit. For taking this view, we are supported by a Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Radhey Shyam Agarwal v. Gayatri Devi 1998 ACJ 1177 (MP) and the judgment of the Apex Court in B. v. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 6 - L S Panta - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Allahdin And Ors. on 31 May, 2006

13...Under Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the defence which the appellant insurance company can raise is in respect of the breach of specified or enumerated conditions of the insurance policy one of which being, viz. , if the vehicle allowed by permit has been used for a purpose other than the specified purpose. As noticed above, the purpose of permit of the ill-fate bus was to carry the passengers and, therefore, there is no violations of statutory provisions by the insured and as such the defence that more than 42 +2 passengers specified under the policy of insurance were carried at the time of the accident in the ill-fated bus is not available under Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act to the appellant insurance company against third party risk as the vehicle was not used for the purpose not authorized by the permit. For taking this view, we are supported by a Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Radhey Shyam Agarwal v. Gayatri Devi 1998 ACJ 1177 (M.P) and the judgment of the Apex Court in B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC).
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 6 - M A Mir - Full Document

Ram Singh @ Bharatlal & Ors vs Santosh Singh & Ors on 16 July, 2015

7. Shri Abhishek Sharaf, learned counsel appearing in M.A.(C) No.43/2013 filed by the owner of the offending vehicle namely Shashi Bhushan Singh would submit that the Insurance Company has been wrongly exonerated in this case. He placed reliance in a case law reported in 1997 (2) TAC 728 (M.P.) Radhe Shyam & another Vs. Gayatri Devi & others and submits that the defence with respect to calling upon permit is not available under Sections 149(2) & 72 to the Insurance Company to disown the liability. He further submits that in absence of any evidence it cannot be presumed that there has been a breach of conditions of policy and the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated. Along with memo of appeal, the document Annexure-A1 has been placed on record. On the basis of such document it is stated that at the relevant time a valid permit was existing. He referred to Annexure A1 and would submit that initially the permit was granted for the period from 03.09.2010 to 30.09.2010 and thereafter it was granted from 02.10.2010 to 31.10.2010 and the amount of tax for the permit was deposited on 01.10.2010 i.e. the date of accident. Therefore, it will be deemed that on the date of accident a permit was existing. He, therefore, prays that the award of Tribunal whereby the Insurance Company is exonerated be set aside.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Munawar Ulla vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 January, 2005

Reliance has been placed on Radhey Shyam Agarwal v. Gayatri Devi , wherein Division Bench of this court has taken a view that Tribunal was in error in holding that because of the violation of the condition of permit of carrying passengers in excess of seating capacity, the insurance company would not be liable to pay compensation is illegal as such a defence is not available in Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act against the third party risks as the vehicle was not used for a purpose allowed by the permit of transport vehicle.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - N K Mody - Full Document
1