New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Ka Synshar Baren And Ors. on 11 August, 1989
In view of the decision in M.K. Kunhimohammed (supra), the decision of this court does not help the MTC.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 127 (1.17 seconds)Documents citing
M.K. Kunhimohammed vs P.A. Ahmedkutty & Ors on 1 September, 1987
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Mohd. Khaja Moinuddin And Anr. on 27 January, 1993
10. When similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty 1987 ACJ 872 (SC), the view taken earlier in British India General Insurance Co. v. Capt.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Angammal And Ors. on 13 June, 1990
In these cases, with the exception of the claim made in M.C.O.P. No. 114 of 1983 relating to C.M.A. No. 480 of 1984 the others relate to death of two passengers and injury sustained by one. Under the terms of the policy, the appellant had agreed to indemnify the insured against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. The only exception is under proviso (b) whereunder the insurance company had excluded its liability in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the insured arising out of and in the course of such employment and proviso (c) carves out another exception to this in that it states that except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in relation to liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 the company shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment) being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the motor vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which any claim arises. On a consideration of the terms of the policy which governed the liability of the appellant at the time when the accident took place, it follows that even as regards death or bodily injury to the passengers, the appellant had undertaken to indemnify the insured against an unlimited liability and it cannot, therefore, be heard to contend that its liability should be restricted to Rs. 5,000/- in respect of the dead or injured passenger, as the case may be. The reliance placed upon the decision in M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty 1987 ACJ 872 (SC), will not also avail the appellant, for, it is found in that case, even under the terms of the policy, there was a specific restriction of the insurer's liability to that provided under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) (2) and (4) of the Act, such is not the case here and, therefore, that decision will (Sic. not) have any application whatever. Likewise, with reference to the limitation of the liability in respect of the death of the driver also, by reasons of endorsement No. 16 referred to earlier, the appellant had agreed to indemnify the insured even as against the liability that may arise under the common law and under Section 110-AA of the Act the dependants are given a choice of filing a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal or the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, as the case may be, but not before both. In this case, it is not suggested that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in C.M.A. No. 480 of 1984 had obtained any benefits under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act by taking appropriate proceedings in that regard. Indeed, it is seen from column 17 of the petition in M.C.O.P. No. 114 of 1983 that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in C.M.A. No. 480 of 1984 had not preferred any other claim and in view of the appellant having agreed to cover a larger liability even under the common law, it cannot be stated that the Tribunal was in error in awarding compensation to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in C.M.A. No. 480 of 1984 in excess of Rs. 19,200/- accepted by the appellant.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Roy George And Ors. on 14 December, 1992
The learned judges felt that the above decision could not be treated as good law in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Jugal Kishore [1988] 63 Comp Cas 847 and M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P. A. Ahmedkutty [1988] 64 Comp Cas 7. The point in these cases related to the defences that are open to an insurance company under Section 96(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The appeal before us is by the National Insurance Company Limited. Of course, during the course of the hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the respondents has sought to sustain the award passed by the Tribunal on certain other grounds.
United India Fire And Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Natvarlal And Ors. on 8 July, 1991
18. The case of Jadavji Keshavji Modi, 1981 ACJ 507 (SC), does not appear to have been considered on the question of construction under Section 95(2) of the Act in the subsequent decision of M.K. Kunhimohammed, 1987 ACJ 872 (SC). The earlier decision of the Supreme Court in case of Jadavji Keshavji Modi (supra) is by a Bench of three Judges whereas the subsequent decision in the case of M.K. Kunhimohammed (supra) is by a Bench of two Judges.
Rajan Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. vs Parhalad Chand Sharma And Ors. on 18 July, 1997
In M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty 1987 ACJ 872 (SC), the question before the Supreme Court was about the interpretation of Section 95(2)(b) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as it existed before its amendment in 1982. The Supreme Court said the limits of liability of an insurer in the case of motor vehicles in which the passengers were carried for hire and reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment: Sub-clause (i) of Section 95(2)(b) provided that in respect of the death of or injury to persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of Rs. 50,000/- in all was the limit of liability of the insurer. Sub-clause (ii) dealt with the liability in respect of death of or injury to passenger. Under that sub-clause there were two specific limits on the liability of the insurer in the case of motor vehicles carrying passengers. The first limit related to the aggregate liability of the insurer in any one accident. It was fixed at Rs. 50,000 in all where the vehicle was registered to carry not more than thirty passengers, at Rs. 75,000/- in all where the vehicle was registered to carry more than thirty but not more than sixty passengers and at Rs. 1,00,000/- in all where the vehicle was registered to carry more than sixty passengers. The said sub-clause proceeded to lay down the other limit in respect of each passenger by providing that subject to the limits aforesaid as regards the aggregate liability, the liability extended up to Rs. 10,000/- for each individual passenger where the vehicle was a motor cab and Rs. 5,000/- for each individual passenger in any other case. Neither of the two limits can be ignored. In the statement of objects and reasons attached to the Bill which ultimately became Act 47 of 1982, it was stated that the limits with respect to insurer's liability to a passenger involved in an accident in a public service vehicle was being fixed at Rs. 15,000/-. After the above amendment, which was intended to increase the liability of the insurer instead of Rs. 10,000/- in the case of each individual passenger where the vehicle was a motor cab and Rs. 5,000/- for each individual passenger in other cases which were the limits in force immediately prior to the said amendment, the liability in respect of an individual passenger is now raised to Rs. 15,000/-. The Supreme Court held that having regard to the statute as it stood prior to the amendment by the Act 47 of 1982, the insurer was liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- for each individual passenger where the vehicle involved was a motor cab and Rs. 5,000/- for each individual passenger in any other case and the provision of Section 95(2) of the 1939 Act as it existed at the time when the accident took place would apply in spite of the fact that an amendment was brought into force enhancing the limit of compensation by Act No. 47 of 1982 during the pendency of the proceedings in the Tribunal.
The United India Fire & Gen. Insurance ... vs Natwarlal And Two Ors. on 8 July, 1991
The earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jadhavji Keshavji (supra) is by a Bench of three Judges whereas the subsequent decision in the case of M.K. Kunhi-mohammed (supra) is by a Bench of two Judges.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Vijay Kumar And Ors. on 31 January, 2001
In M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty 1987 ACJ 872 (SC), a bus met with an accident due to negligence of its driver resulting in death of a passenger. It was held that the liability of the insurer of the bus was limited to Rs. 5,000.
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Mohd. Khaja Moinuddin And Anr. on 27 January, 1993
7. When similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty (1 supra), the view taken earlier in B.I.G. Insurance Co. v. Itbar Singh (4 supra) followed in , was not accepted. The later Supreme Court judgment (1 supra) held that the insurer can take defence apart from what is enumerated under sub-section (2) of Section 96, thus, pleading the maximum liability of payment of compensation. At para 13 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that "Having regard to the statute as it stood prior to the amendments by Act 47 of 1982, we hold that the insurer was liable to pay upto Rs. 10,000/- for each individual passenger where the vehicle involved was a motor cab and upto Rs. 5,000/- for each individual passenger in any other case".
Oriental Fire And Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. And ... vs P.P. Misri And Ors. on 11 October, 1991
Bearing that in mind before considering the decision reported in M.K. Kunhimoltammed v. PA. Ahmedkutty 1987 ACJ 872 (SC), we shall advert to certain other decisions which may support the case of a statutory liability quite independent of a tortious liability.