Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 174 (1.84 seconds)
Documents citing Kulwant Singh & Ors vs Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd on 28 October, 2014

Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd on 11 February, 2016

In Ashok Gangadhar Maratha in para 10 (supra), S.Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. (supra), Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), and Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (supra), the view taken is that when driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he is competent to drive transport vehicle of that category; whereas in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal (supra) the view taken is that before 2001 also it was necessary for a driver possessing licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle to obtain endorsement to drive transport vehicle of that category; whereas in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra), this Court laid down that before 28.3.2001 there was no necessity for holder of licence to drive light motor vehicle to have endorsement to drive transport vehicle; whereas in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr. (supra) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors. (supra), the view taken is that it is necessary for holder of light motor vehicle licence to obtain specific endorsement on licence, to drive transport vehicle of the light motor vehicle weight as provided in section 2(41). Thus, there appears to be a conflict in the decisions of this Court with respect to the pre-amended position and also after amendment has been effected in the Forms in 2001. In view of aforesaid discussion, following questions are required to be referred to larger Bench :
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 2801 - A Mishra - Full Document

Kamlesh Upadhyay vs Waseem Haq S/O Shri Aneesul Haq on 29 November, 2016

It may be noticed that in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha, 2000 ACJ 319 (SC); in para 10, S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC); Kulwant Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 ACJ 2873 (SC) and Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 1441 (SC), the view taken is that when drive is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he is competent to drive transport vehicle of that category.
Delhi District Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.Vinayakumar vs Leela on 31 October, 2003

10. Further the same view has been reiterated by the apex court again in the decision reported in Kulwant Singh and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2015 (2) SCC 186). That was also a case where the vehicle was driven by a driver who is having only the licence to drive the light motor vehicle and not authorised to drive passenger transport vehicle. While he was driving a passenger vehicle that the incident occurred and in that case, the apex court had held that, mere not holding a badge is not a ground to avoid liability for the insurance M.A.C.A. Nos.1718 of 2005, 1816 of 2005, 1834 of 2005 & 2104 of 2005 13 company and give them a right to recover the amount from the insured and directed the insurance company to pay the amount.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Divisional Manager vs Smt Puttamma on 24 March, 2015

In Civil Appeal No.8639/2014 dated 10.09.2014 (in the case of S.Chinnaswamy vs. Rathnamma & others) and the decision reported in 2014 ACJ 2873 (in the case of Kulwant Singh & others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.), the Supreme Court has held that Insurance Company cannot disown its liability on the ground that driver was driving a light motor vehicle (transport), without endorsement in the licence to drive a transport vehicle.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N Ananda - Full Document

Shri.Subodh S/O Madhukar Chaure vs New India Insurance Co. Ltd, Through Its ... on 2 February, 2018

9.We find that when Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (supra) has clearly observed that Light Motor Vehicle covers both light passengers carriage vehicle and light goods carriage and that the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability and as there is no breach of policy condition.  Hence, we hold that in the instant case as the driver of the vehicle was holding lincence to light motor vehicle, he can also drive light passengers carriage vehicle also and hence there cannot be breach of policy condition. Thus, applying the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to present case, we find that the repudiation of the claim can be said to be illegal and it constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Therefore, we hold that the respondent is liable to indemnify the appellant for the loss suffered by him due to damage of his insured vehicle.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next