Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
Documents citing New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Ladu Kishore Sahu on 21 May, 2003

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs B Satyajit Reddy And Ors. on 21 September, 2010

There are earlier rulings of the National Commission in support of this contention. This Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs Ladu Kishore Sahu III (2003) CPJ 99 (NC), has held that Jubaraj was issued a license valid for 20 years. There is also no specific entitlement in the driving license to drive a taxi. Obviously, it was not a license to drive transport vehicle. Hence his act in driving a taxi was illegal and such driving was in contravention of the terms of the policy conditions. In our view, the Insurance Company was right in repudiating the claim. The revision petition is allowed and the order of the State Commission is accordingly set aside.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Vipan Kumar vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 22 February, 2010

In support of his contention he produced the ruling of Honble National Commission titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ladu Kishore Sahu-III (2003) CPJ 99 (NC), wherein the driver was not authorized to drive a taxi and he was driving it illegally in contravention of policy and caused the accident. It was held that the Insurance Company was right in repudiating the claim.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The New India Assurance Co. vs Smt. Kinauri Devi on 18 June, 2008

3. Mr. Sharma by referring to the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai & Ors., II (2006) CPJ 8 (SC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal, I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) and of National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ladu Kishore Sahu, III (2003) CPJ 99 (NC), submitted that in the absence of endorsement on the licence whereby the driver was licensed to drive a transport vehicle this is a case of no licence, as such this appeal deserves to be allowed on this short ground alone and complaint dismissed. Contentions urged on behalf of the appellant have been seriously contested by Mr. Chandel learned counsel for the respondent.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1